Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Feb
28
What’s a merino anyway?
Filed Under Politics | 5 Comments
You are Merino Wool.You are very easygoing and sweet. People like to keep you close because you are so softhearted. You love to be comfortable and warm from your head to your toes.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:53 pm February 28th, 2006 in Politics | 5 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
28
What’s a merino anyway?
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
You are Merino Wool.You are very easygoing and sweet. People like to keep you close because you are so softhearted. You love to be comfortable and warm from your head to your toes.By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:53 pm February 28th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Feb
28
Hummer-loads of respect for Paul Hackett
Filed Under Politics | 4 Comments
From the time I met Paul Hackett at Meet the Bloggers, through The Week That Was when he withdrew from the U.S. Senate race, I’ve wondered outloud (and in this blog) about whether he really wanted the job as U.S. Senator from Ohio.
In this piece written by Hackett, he answers that question, for me, and for himself. Voicing this realization publicly must be an incredible burden lifted from him. Because what I sensed that made me wonder in the first place, was the way his presentation throughout the time he did campaign, seemed, somehow, somewhere to be a burden.
I’m lousy at a lot of things, and I’m flawed in many ways, but my intuition about that kind of sense emanating from someone else, that says something about the person that they may not even realize – I can rely on it pretty reliably.
I wish Paul Hackett the absolute best luck as he and his family move forward. I have to say, while I don’t know him even in as limited a way as those who got to know him through being loyal to his campaigns, I’m certain that his resolve for whatever he is about to do is going to be far more obvious than was his lack of lust for winning the U.S. Senate seat.
Semper Fi indeed.
Hattip to Plunderbund.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:24 pm February 28th, 2006 in Politics | 4 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
28
SCOTUS hears arguments today on constitutionality of caps on political candidate expenditures
Filed Under Politics | 3 Comments
If, like me, you think that the law should limit candidates’ expenditures on political campaigns, then listen to this morning’s NPR piece by Peter Overby about a case hitting SCOTUS today re: Vermont’s effort to place spending caps (Governor gets to spend up to $300,000) on political candidates’ efforts at election. I heard the report live this morning around 7:15am and was stunned at the timeliness of the piece, given this post and this post.
The plaintiffs are Republicans who argue that,”the First Amendment protects speech and there is nothing more central to that than the ability of candidates to raise and spend money on their own speech.” On the other side, the VT AG, has asserted at least two compelling state interests, which the lower courts already have accepted: “preventing the reality and appearance of corruption, and protecting the time of candidates and elected officials.”
They compel me.
Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont, supports the law.
He admitted that some people in the Democratic Party aren’t thrilled he had chosen to put the party on record in support of Vermont’s law. “I think it is going to shock a lot of people. I’ll get some backlash.”
Mr. Dean, I’ll stand by you on this one, no problem.
One of the most interesting comments to me in the NPR story was how some Vermonters are unhappy with even a $400 limit on individual donations because to them, that money equals groceries, gas, heating and clothing. Basic needs. $400. This money means something to these people and they have a real problem with how political candidates spend money to elected.
Of course, this is Vermont. But maybe I was meant to live in Vermont? I thought I was going to be a librarian or school teacher in Maine after I finished college. That, obviously, didn’t work out.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 3:45 pm February 28th, 2006 in Politics | 3 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
28
Hummer-loads of respect for Paul Hackett
Filed Under Politics | 4 Comments
From the time I met Paul Hackett at Meet the Bloggers, through The Week That Was when he withdrew from the U.S. Senate race, I’ve wondered outloud (and in this blog) about whether he really wanted the job as U.S. Senator from Ohio.
In this piece written by Hackett, he answers that question, for me, and for himself. Voicing this realization publicly must be an incredible burden lifted from him. Because what I sensed that made me wonder in the first place, was the way his presentation throughout the time he did campaign, seemed, somehow, somewhere to be a burden.
I’m lousy at a lot of things, and I’m flawed in many ways, but my intuition about that kind of sense emanating from someone else, that says something about the person that they may not even realize – I can rely on it pretty reliably.
I wish Paul Hackett the absolute best luck as he and his family move forward. I have to say, while I don’t know him even in as limited a way as those who got to know him through being loyal to his campaigns, I’m certain that his resolve for whatever he is about to do is going to be far more obvious than was his lack of lust for winning the U.S. Senate seat.
Semper Fi indeed.
Hattip to Plunderbund.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:24 pm February 28th, 2006 in Politics | 4 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
28
SCOTUS hears arguments today on constitutionality of caps on political candidate expenditures
Filed Under Politics | 3 Comments
If, like me, you think that the law should limit candidates’ expenditures on political campaigns, then listen to this morning’s NPR piece by Peter Overby about a case hitting SCOTUS today re: Vermont’s effort to place spending caps (Governor gets to spend up to $300,000) on political candidates’ efforts at election. I heard the report live this morning around 7:15am and was stunned at the timeliness of the piece, given this post and this post.
The plaintiffs are Republicans who argue that,”the First Amendment protects speech and there is nothing more central to that than the ability of candidates to raise and spend money on their own speech.” On the other side, the VT AG, has asserted at least two compelling state interests, which the lower courts already have accepted: “preventing the reality and appearance of corruption, and protecting the time of candidates and elected officials.”
They compel me.
Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont, supports the law.
He admitted that some people in the Democratic Party aren’t thrilled he had chosen to put the party on record in support of Vermont’s law. “I think it is going to shock a lot of people. I’ll get some backlash.”
Mr. Dean, I’ll stand by you on this one, no problem.
One of the most interesting comments to me in the NPR story was how some Vermonters are unhappy with even a $400 limit on individual donations because to them, that money equals groceries, gas, heating and clothing. Basic needs. $400. This money means something to these people and they have a real problem with how political candidates spend money to elected.
Of course, this is Vermont. But maybe I was meant to live in Vermont? I thought I was going to be a librarian or school teacher in Maine after I finished college. That, obviously, didn’t work out.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:45 am February 28th, 2006 in Politics | 3 Comments
Print This Post
Feb
28
Hummer-loads of respect for Paul Hackett
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
From the time I met Paul Hackett at Meet the Bloggers, through The Week That Was when he withdrew from the U.S. Senate race, I’ve wondered outloud (and in this blog) about whether he really wanted the job as U.S. Senator from Ohio.
In this piece written by Hackett, he answers that question, for me, and for himself. Voicing this realization publicly must be an incredible burden lifted from him. Because what I sensed that made me wonder in the first place, was the way his presentation throughout the time he did campaign, seemed, somehow, somewhere to be a burden.
I’m lousy at a lot of things, and I’m flawed in many ways, but my intuition about that kind of sense emanating from someone else, that says something about the person that they may not even realize – I can rely on it pretty reliably.
I wish Paul Hackett the absolute best luck as he and his family move forward. I have to say, while I don’t know him even in as limited a way as those who got to know him through being loyal to his campaigns, I’m certain that his resolve for whatever he is about to do is going to be far more obvious than was his lack of lust for winning the U.S. Senate seat.
Semper Fi indeed.
Hattip to Plunderbund.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:24 am February 28th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Feb
28
SCOTUS hears arguments today on constitutionality of caps on political candidate expenditures
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
If, like me, you think that the law should limit candidates’ expenditures on political campaigns, then listen to this morning’s NPR piece by Peter Overby about a case hitting SCOTUS today re: Vermont’s effort to place spending caps (Governor gets to spend up to $300,000) on political candidates’ efforts at election. I heard the report live this morning around 7:15am and was stunned at the timeliness of the piece, given this post and this post.
The plaintiffs are Republicans who argue that,”the First Amendment protects speech and there is nothing more central to that than the ability of candidates to raise and spend money on their own speech.” On the other side, the VT AG, has asserted at least two compelling state interests, which the lower courts already have accepted: “preventing the reality and appearance of corruption, and protecting the time of candidates and elected officials.”
They compel me.
Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont, supports the law.
He admitted that some people in the Democratic Party aren’t thrilled he had chosen to put the party on record in support of Vermont’s law. “I think it is going to shock a lot of people. I’ll get some backlash.”
Mr. Dean, I’ll stand by you on this one, no problem.
One of the most interesting comments to me in the NPR story was how some Vermonters are unhappy with even a $400 limit on individual donations because to them, that money equals groceries, gas, heating and clothing. Basic needs. $400. This money means something to these people and they have a real problem with how political candidates spend money to elected.
Of course, this is Vermont. But maybe I was meant to live in Vermont? I thought I was going to be a librarian or school teacher in Maine after I finished college. That, obviously, didn’t work out.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 8:45 am February 28th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Feb
28
Broader swath = different endorsement?
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
This evening, the Plain Dealer Openers includes about GOP candidate for Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery’s failure to get the backing of the Miami County Republican Party. You can read the details here.
What I’d like to know is, if the Ohio Democratic Party followed suit and allowed party members who aren’t on the executive committee to vote on pre-primary endorsements, what would that right-hand sidebar on the ODP website front page look like today?
Just as a refresher, here’s the information on how to get on the ODP Executive Committee, plus the most recent questions I’ve asked, to which I’ve yet to get a response.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:34 am February 28th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
