Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Oct
16
Congresswoman (D, 11th District) Stephanie Tubbs Jones will Meet the Bloggers this Wednesday, 1:30pm.
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
You can read more about it here.
I’m unable to attend, and I definitely have some questions I’d like to ask (for one, I want to ask her about her support for Issue 3, and did you know that she is one of only four members of a committee investigating Mark Foley?), but I hope others will please attend. Meet the Bloggers is an unparalleled opportunity for ordinary voters to judge candidates for themselves in a very informal and welcoming setting for both the interviewee and the attendees.
If you have time this Wednesday at 1:30pm, you cannot spend it any better way than Meeting the Bloggers with US Congresswoman, Stephanie Tubbs Jones.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:44 pm October 16th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Oct
16
Congresswoman (D, 11th District) Stephanie Tubbs Jones will Meet the Bloggers this Wednesday, 1:30pm.
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
You can read more about it here.
I’m unable to attend, and I definitely have some questions I’d like to ask (for one, I want to ask her about her support for Issue 3, and did you know that she is one of only four members of a committee investigating Mark Foley?), but I hope others will please attend. Meet the Bloggers is an unparalleled opportunity for ordinary voters to judge candidates for themselves in a very informal and welcoming setting for both the interviewee and the attendees.
If you have time this Wednesday at 1:30pm, you cannot spend it any better way than Meeting the Bloggers with US Congresswoman, Stephanie Tubbs Jones.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:44 pm October 16th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Oct
16
Questions Republican candidate for Ohio State House Josh Mandel won’t answer
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Received this afternoon via email:
For immediate release: Monday, Oct. 16, 2006
CONTACT: Adam Hewit at (614) 280-1835
Tough questions scare Mandel out of debate
Republican Josh Mandel, who is supported by the same Statehouse insiders who want to see Ken Blackwell elected governor, backed out of a televised debate with Democrat Roger Goudy late last week – just hours after proposed debate questions were made public at a Thursday Solon Cable Commission meeting.
The 17th House District debate was to take place Wednesday on Solon cable television. Among the questions Goudy submitted to the commission for a moderator to ask Mandel:
- You received money from Tom Noe when you were running for Lyndhurst City Council. Isn’t it highly unusual for a city council candidate in Lyndhurst to receive contributions from a coin dealer in Toledo? What is your relationship with Tom Noe?
- Are you voting for Ken Blackwell or Ted Strickland?
- You seem to have a lot of time to campaign for this office. Do you have a job and if so how many hours a week do you actually work at this job?
- What is your position on abortion?
- What is your position on charter schools?
Hours after these and other proposed questions were made public, Mandel backed out of the debate, to which he had committed weeks earlier.
House Democratic Leader Joyce Beatty said today Mandel’s decision to back out raises a whole new set of questions about the Republican, who has accepted $20,000 in campaign contributions from charter school magnate David Brennan and his wife.
“You have to wonder just what Josh Mandel is afraid of,” Beatty said. “Is he afraid to discuss his position on charter schools, or is he afraid discuss his position on abortion? Is he afraid to discuss his relationship with Tom Noe or is he afraid to discuss his relationship with Ken Blackwell?”
Beatty, D-Columbus, said she finds it particularly surprising that Mandel has steadfastly refused to take a stand on Ken Blackwell.
“If Ken Blackwell gets his way, he would mortgage Ohio’s future by handing off the Ohio Turnpike to a foreign corporation. And Blackwell’s position on abortion is so extreme he would completely outlaw it, even to save the life of a mother,” Beatty said.
“If Josh Mandel won’t take a stand on someone like Ken Blackwell, then you have to wonder: What does Josh Mandel really stand for?” Beatty said.
Ah, the wisdom of youth.
Or not.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:01 pm October 16th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Oct
16
Reason #23 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3
Filed Under Politics | 3 Comments
Because the Plain Dealer says to vote yes. How many times over the years have I heard people say, I just vote opposite of what the paper says?
Now, I need to resist getting too emotional, but I’m dropping the Plain Dealer subscription I’ve had longer than I can even remember (at least 13 years) as a result of the endorsement. However, I cannot emphasize enough that I’m doing so, not because the PD supports Issue 3. I’m doing so because their endorsement is insupportable, just on the basis of what it states.
The paper has no excuse for not being harder on this state. Those five men named on the mast head, including a chief marketing person, are the brains of the paper and people look to them. If the reasoning represented in that editorial is the best the PD editors can do, then their opinion of what readers should buy from them – as to why to vote a certain way, and the low threshold that the paper is willing to construct for why an issue or a candidate should be supported, or not supported for that matter, have both sunk below what I expect, even at a minimum, from a paper its size in a city that needs strong leadership and brave reporting.
Yesterday, in a tailspin over the failings of the endorsement’s reasoning, I spent quite a while reading the entire Issue 3 amendment. It is an absolutely horrifically drafted thing. Parts of it are just unenforceable because they conflict. For example, in the very beginning, it says the Regents will be the sole arbiters of who is eligible for the money, and then it goes on to outline very specific criteria. What’s with that?
So, I asked my husband if it was okay to drop the PD subscription. He of course didn’t care – I’m the one who reads it. And I really do read the paper. I’m going to miss it. I’ve defended it. I’ve wanted to make it better by just writing letters to the editor or getting an op-ed in. But the endorsements this year have failed to demonstrate any consistency in how they are reasoned.
Endorsements should be where the brains of the paper shine and show why the editors are the editors, are leading and should lead. The Plain Dealer has failed me as a reader on all accounts.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn).
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:06 pm October 16th, 2006 in Politics | 3 Comments
Print This Post
Oct
16
Questions Republican candidate for Ohio State House Josh Mandel won’t answer
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Received this afternoon via email:
For immediate release: Monday, Oct. 16, 2006
CONTACT: Adam Hewit at (614) 280-1835
Tough questions scare Mandel out of debate
Republican Josh Mandel, who is supported by the same Statehouse insiders who want to see Ken Blackwell elected governor, backed out of a televised debate with Democrat Roger Goudy late last week – just hours after proposed debate questions were made public at a Thursday Solon Cable Commission meeting.
The 17th House District debate was to take place Wednesday on Solon cable television. Among the questions Goudy submitted to the commission for a moderator to ask Mandel:
- You received money from Tom Noe when you were running for Lyndhurst City Council. Isn’t it highly unusual for a city council candidate in Lyndhurst to receive contributions from a coin dealer in Toledo? What is your relationship with Tom Noe?
- Are you voting for Ken Blackwell or Ted Strickland?
- You seem to have a lot of time to campaign for this office. Do you have a job and if so how many hours a week do you actually work at this job?
- What is your position on abortion?
- What is your position on charter schools?
Hours after these and other proposed questions were made public, Mandel backed out of the debate, to which he had committed weeks earlier.
House Democratic Leader Joyce Beatty said today Mandel’s decision to back out raises a whole new set of questions about the Republican, who has accepted $20,000 in campaign contributions from charter school magnate David Brennan and his wife.
“You have to wonder just what Josh Mandel is afraid of,” Beatty said. “Is he afraid to discuss his position on charter schools, or is he afraid discuss his position on abortion? Is he afraid to discuss his relationship with Tom Noe or is he afraid to discuss his relationship with Ken Blackwell?”
Beatty, D-Columbus, said she finds it particularly surprising that Mandel has steadfastly refused to take a stand on Ken Blackwell.
“If Ken Blackwell gets his way, he would mortgage Ohio’s future by handing off the Ohio Turnpike to a foreign corporation. And Blackwell’s position on abortion is so extreme he would completely outlaw it, even to save the life of a mother,” Beatty said.
“If Josh Mandel won’t take a stand on someone like Ken Blackwell, then you have to wonder: What does Josh Mandel really stand for?” Beatty said.
Ah, the wisdom of youth.
Or not.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:01 pm October 16th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Oct
16
Reason #23 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3
Filed Under Politics | 2 Comments
Because the Plain Dealer says to vote yes. How many times over the years have I heard people say, I just vote opposite of what the paper says?
Now, I need to resist getting too emotional, but I’m dropping the Plain Dealer subscription I’ve had longer than I can even remember (at least 13 years) as a result of the endorsement. However, I cannot emphasize enough that I’m doing so, not because the PD supports Issue 3. I’m doing so because their endorsement is insupportable, just on the basis of what it states.
The paper has no excuse for not being harder on this state. Those five men named on the mast head, including a chief marketing person, are the brains of the paper and people look to them. If the reasoning represented in that editorial is the best the PD editors can do, then their opinion of what readers should buy from them – as to why to vote a certain way, and the low threshold that the paper is willing to construct for why an issue or a candidate should be supported, or not supported for that matter, have both sunk below what I expect, even at a minimum, from a paper its size in a city that needs strong leadership and brave reporting.
Yesterday, in a tailspin over the failings of the endorsement’s reasoning, I spent quite a while reading the entire Issue 3 amendment. It is an absolutely horrifically drafted thing. Parts of it are just unenforceable because they conflict. For example, in the very beginning, it says the Regents will be the sole arbiters of who is eligible for the money, and then it goes on to outline very specific criteria. What’s with that?
So, I asked my husband if it was okay to drop the PD subscription. He of course didn’t care – I’m the one who reads it. And I really do read the paper. I’m going to miss it. I’ve defended it. I’ve wanted to make it better by just writing letters to the editor or getting an op-ed in. But the endorsements this year have failed to demonstrate any consistency in how they are reasoned.
Endorsements should be where the brains of the paper shine and show why the editors are the editors, are leading and should lead. The Plain Dealer has failed me as a reader on all accounts.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn).
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:06 am October 16th, 2006 in Politics | 2 Comments
Print This Post
Oct
16
Questions Republican candidate for Ohio State House Josh Mandel won’t answer
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Received this afternoon via email:
For immediate release: Monday, Oct. 16, 2006
CONTACT: Adam Hewit at (614) 280-1835
Tough questions scare Mandel out of debate
Republican Josh Mandel, who is supported by the same Statehouse insiders who want to see Ken Blackwell elected governor, backed out of a televised debate with Democrat Roger Goudy late last week – just hours after proposed debate questions were made public at a Thursday Solon Cable Commission meeting.
The 17th House District debate was to take place Wednesday on Solon cable television. Among the questions Goudy submitted to the commission for a moderator to ask Mandel:
- You received money from Tom Noe when you were running for Lyndhurst City Council. Isn’t it highly unusual for a city council candidate in Lyndhurst to receive contributions from a coin dealer in Toledo? What is your relationship with Tom Noe?
- Are you voting for Ken Blackwell or Ted Strickland?
- You seem to have a lot of time to campaign for this office. Do you have a job and if so how many hours a week do you actually work at this job?
- What is your position on abortion?
- What is your position on charter schools?
Hours after these and other proposed questions were made public, Mandel backed out of the debate, to which he had committed weeks earlier.
House Democratic Leader Joyce Beatty said today Mandel’s decision to back out raises a whole new set of questions about the Republican, who has accepted $20,000 in campaign contributions from charter school magnate David Brennan and his wife.
“You have to wonder just what Josh Mandel is afraid of,” Beatty said. “Is he afraid to discuss his position on charter schools, or is he afraid discuss his position on abortion? Is he afraid to discuss his relationship with Tom Noe or is he afraid to discuss his relationship with Ken Blackwell?”
Beatty, D-Columbus, said she finds it particularly surprising that Mandel has steadfastly refused to take a stand on Ken Blackwell.
“If Ken Blackwell gets his way, he would mortgage Ohio’s future by handing off the Ohio Turnpike to a foreign corporation. And Blackwell’s position on abortion is so extreme he would completely outlaw it, even to save the life of a mother,” Beatty said.
“If Josh Mandel won’t take a stand on someone like Ken Blackwell, then you have to wonder: What does Josh Mandel really stand for?” Beatty said.
Ah, the wisdom of youth.
Or not.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:01 am October 16th, 2006 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Oct
16
Reason #23 to VOTE NO on ISSUE 3
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Because the Plain Dealer says to vote yes. How many times over the years have I heard people say, I just vote opposite of what the paper says?
Now, I need to resist getting too emotional, but I’m dropping the Plain Dealer subscription I’ve had longer than I can even remember (at least 13 years) as a result of the endorsement. However, I cannot emphasize enough that I’m doing so, not because the PD supports Issue 3. I’m doing so because their endorsement is insupportable, just on the basis of what it states.
The paper has no excuse for not being harder on this state. Those five men named on the mast head, including a chief marketing person, are the brains of the paper and people look to them. If the reasoning represented in that editorial is the best the PD editors can do, then their opinion of what readers should buy from them – as to why to vote a certain way, and the low threshold that the paper is willing to construct for why an issue or a candidate should be supported, or not supported for that matter, have both sunk below what I expect, even at a minimum, from a paper its size in a city that needs strong leadership and brave reporting.
Yesterday, in a tailspin over the failings of the endorsement’s reasoning, I spent quite a while reading the entire Issue 3 amendment. It is an absolutely horrifically drafted thing. Parts of it are just unenforceable because they conflict. For example, in the very beginning, it says the Regents will be the sole arbiters of who is eligible for the money, and then it goes on to outline very specific criteria. What’s with that?
So, I asked my husband if it was okay to drop the PD subscription. He of course didn’t care – I’m the one who reads it. And I really do read the paper. I’m going to miss it. I’ve defended it. I’ve wanted to make it better by just writing letters to the editor or getting an op-ed in. But the endorsements this year have failed to demonstrate any consistency in how they are reasoned.
Endorsements should be where the brains of the paper shine and show why the editors are the editors, are leading and should lead. The Plain Dealer has failed me as a reader on all accounts.
Previous reasons to vote no on Issue 3:
Reason 24
Reason 25
Reason 26
Reason 27
Reason 28
Reason 29
Reason 30
Reason 31
Reason 32
Reason 33
Reason 34
Reason 35
Reason 36
Reason 37
Reason 38
Reason 39
Reason 40
Reason 41
Reason 42
Reason 43
Reason 44
Reason 45
Reason 46
Reason 47
Reason 48
Reason 49
Reason 50
Reason 51
Reason 52
Reason 53
Reason 54
Reason 55
Reason 56
Reason 57
Vote no on Issue 3 (Ohio Learn and Earn).
By Jill Miller Zimon at 6:06 am October 16th, 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
