Print This Post
May
8
1. Is it really okay for a public servant, elected by the people of Ohio, to work for the people of Ohio, on behalf of the people of Ohio to tell the people of Ohio, via a news media outlets’ attempts to report:
“Is the attorney general available for an interview today?” NBC 4’s Mikaela Hunt asked.
“No,” said Spokesman Ted Hart.
“What is he doing today that he’s not available for an interview?” Hunt asked.
“He’s in a series of meetings,” Hart said.
“What is he meeting on today?” Hunt asked.
“It’s routine work of the office,” Hart said.
[independent consultant to handle any media questions about the impeachment process or calls for his resignation Jason] Standford said that as soon as Dann is ready to talk, he will talk. [emphasis added]
Hmm, no, I’m thinking, the people I elected and I pay for talk when I need them to talk. Not when he tells me he is ready to talk. I don’t care how they try to compartmentalize it.
2. Here’s a variation on the same theme re: he wants to make judgements and tell us that that’s what he gets to do. Guess what? You blew your chance at making judgements we trust – does Marc Dann really not get that yet? From WBNS:
The Attorney General’s spokesman, Ted Hart, said Dann was not hiding from the public, but using his time to restore the public’s trust following the scandal.
“Is he hiding? Is he hiding from the public and is he hiding from the media since the call for his resignation? Aker asked.
“Absolutely not,” Hart said. “He stood here and addressed the media a week ago for close to an hour until there were no more questions.”
“He’s not hiding,” Hart said. “He’s doing what he thinks is best right now.” [emphasis added]
Is that some kind of surreal joke? Does Hart mean, like, all the other times he though he was doing what he thought was best? O.M.G.
3. The Tribune Chronicle from Sunday, 5/4/08, outlines how the complaints began to arise last fall and how it is that, when you hire cronies, they may not act in the best interests of anyone but the person who hired them.
4. Progress Ohio post by Jane Schiff that argues that Dann should stay.
5. Dayton Daily News reports that Dann’s campaign fund will “undergo routine audit.”
6. From the wayback machine, the Youngstown Vindicator puzzles in print over Dann’s hiring choices – 1/7/07.
7. I did see this when it was first published, but Modern Esquire does a nice job highlighting the gall.
8. Ohio’s largest union, the Ohio AFL-CIO, which endorsed Dann in 2006, seeks his resignation.
9. The Cincinnati Enquierer has started the Dann Death Watch. I think the Daily Dann is much more neutral.
10. Chris Baker makes a well-reasoned but still not convincing argument at Ohio Daily Blog for why Dann isn’t technically impeachable and what really needs to be done.
11. An interesting two-fer from the Columbus Dispatch:
b. Impeach him
12. I’ll end with a post from The Daily Briefing, the Dispatch’s blog, that includes my favorite you must be kidding quote. I’m sure you can figure out what it is.
13. Late addition in video from Channel 5 (WLWT): State Rep. Tom Brinkman (R) is concerned about making Dann a martyr? For what or who? Adulterers? Also in there, Dann’s intention to remain a Democrat even if the ODP this weekend succeeds in efforts to rescind its support during its annual convention.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:47 pm May 8th, 2008 in Democrats, Gender, Government, Law, Marc Dann, Ohio, Politics, Scandal, Women
Comments
3 Responses to “The Daily Dann, 5/8/08”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
I’m not saying that he is impeachable, just that there needs to be an independent investigation before anything else is decided. I question strategy and tactics, not the goal.
Right now I see a serious chance that this will become a circus and blow up in the Democrats face. It needs to move out of the realm of emotion and politics and into the realm of justice and prevention.
Jill,
You are not a writer. You are an apologist. And you do an excellent job of one thing: obfuscating truth. Instead of admitting that you supported Clinton at one time, you attempt to change the definition of support.
As long as ignorance exists, there will always be fodder for your written works. An audience with discernment makes your material irrelevant.
[...] from the same playbook I’ve been writing, the concept of compartmentalizing: “It’s the exception for a very strong powerful man [...]