Friday, October 27, 2006

Big Money Contributions:  Heimlich v. Pepper

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Andrew Warner is upset that David Pepper accepted a $10,000 campaign contribution from Louis Beck, who has ties to the casino industry and has worked for Ohio Learn and Earn.  Warner suggests Pepper’s support for casino gambling has a causal relationship with that contribution.  Interestingly, Warner has nothing to say about any of Phil Heimlich’s campaign contributions.

You can download both campaign reports here.

I gave the documents a quick scan and pulled out some names of contributors to Heimlich with $10,000 or more—since that seemed a significant rubric for calling out Beck’s contribution to Pepper.  I quickly assembled this list.  If I missed any, please add them to the comments below:

Richard Farmer—$35,000

Michael Valentine—$10,000

David Warner—$15,000

Dennis Bley—$12,500

William Dewitt, Jr—$12,500

James Gardner—$10,000

James Jurgensen—$10,000

Douglas Meyer—$12,500

Mercer Reynolds—$12,500

Michael Valentine—$25,000

E. Michael Zicka—$10,000

E. Michael Zicka is president of Zicka Walker Homes, which seems to own several apartment buildings around town.  I am still a bit unclear on all the details surrounding Phil Heimlich’s various real estate connections.  By now, word is spreading about Three Centurions, Heimlich’s business venture with Christopher P. Finney, Esq.  Additionally, we know that his failed anti-Drake campaign from a few years back was funded by Chris Finney, Nursing Homes, and Real Estate companies (source).  We also know that the COAST cabal’s fixation on property taxes really benefits those with lots of real estate investments.  And finally, if you’ve been keeping an eye out for Heimlich yard signs, big ones can be seen in front of apartment complexes—especially on the East side of town.

James Jurgensen owns the property in Wilder, Kentucky where Castellini moved his produce company after making a sweet profit off the property now known as The Banks (source, and source).  Castellini is also a power player on The Banks Working Group.

Michael Valentine seems to have made his extra money on radar detectors for speeders.  Don’t know what to make of that.

Feel free to dig around on the other names!

So while Warner might have a point about the casino thing—which really only resonates with those who are vehemently opposed to gambling as a way to jump-start the Cincinnati economy—one must also wonder about these several big contributions to Heimlich, and the constellation of connections they start to reveal…

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Socializer!

Username

Password

Auto-login on future visits

Show my name in the online users list

Forgot your password?

Register

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

Silly Andrew says:
27 Oct 2006  at  06:27 am | #

Beck is a big Democrat.  Pepper knew Louis Beck long before Beck tried to get casinos here. Beck has not been into casinos before. Check past reports.

THe Banks says:
27 Oct 2006  at  06:29 am | #

What’s interesting is all the people (Warner, Barrett, Smyjunas) who Heimlich gave money back to weeks before the last report because they were bidding on the Banks (the same people Heimlich ultimately recommended), now have re-contributed the money he gave back to them.  Guess he got paid for the favor after all!

Andrew Warner says:
27 Oct 2006  at  06:30 am | #

So while Warner might have a point about the casino thing?which really only resonates with those who are vehemently opposed to gambling as a way to jump-start the Cincinnati economy?

So it’s just information for people who oppose casino gambling?

I’m surprised you’re so willing to give Pepper a pass on “pay-to-play,” but so opposed with Heimlich.

Dean, I had focus in my original post. Yours is all over the place and sloppy. Before you bring up someone like Castellini you should probably look over Pepper’s report again and look at the other large donations on the report (you may just find Castellini!).

Andrew Warner says:
27 Oct 2006  at  06:32 am | #

"Silly Andrew,”

Read my post. I know Beck has given to Pepper in the past. I even pointed out the ten fold increase that has been neglected by you and the Dean.

Silly Andrew says:
27 Oct 2006  at  07:44 am | #

Which proves the point that Beck supported Pepper long before he jumped into his 2-month casino venture.  And then he gave to Pepper after the casino venture was dead.  He’s just a Democrat who wants to beat Heimlich as much as anyone.

Andrew Warner says:
27 Oct 2006  at  08:04 am | #

Don’t be ridiculous.

Beck gave $1000 amounts until Pepper was pitted against an opponent who is staunchly opposed to casinos. When the chance to get a pro-casino vote on the commission popped up, the donation amount multiplied by ten.

If you want to play rah-rah Democrat guy then feel free. The sharp jump in Beck’s donation amount speaks for itself.

SIlly Warner says:
27 Oct 2006  at  08:07 am | #

Maybe Pepper asked for more so he could compete against ther right-wing nut Heimlich.  Sure seems that Phil asks for more again and again.  Just look at how many times Stan Chesley has given to him, or David Warner, or the others.

Howard Roark says:
27 Oct 2006  at  08:14 am | #

So, Mike McNamara doesn’t even live in Hamilton County?

Hank & Jane Heimlich kicked in $12,500 apiece for $25,000....silver spoon my ass.

Andrew Warner says:
27 Oct 2006  at  08:27 am | #

"silly warner,”

Sure, maybe he asked for more money. Maybe Louis Beck won the lottery. Maybe Beck invested in some good stock and has more to give.

We could make up situations all day long.

However, the facts remain: Beck has interest in starting a casino. Pepper gave him his support. Phil Heimlich opposes casinos. Beck gives Pepper ten times his usual amount in order to dethrone Heimlich.

Looks like Beck is investing in his business venture.

Bearman says:
27 Oct 2006  at  08:42 am | #

What seems to be missed in all this, is that the original article that Andrew cites points to Cranley as benefiting the most from the Pro-gambling players and not Pepper.  So why no discussion on him??

Andrew Warner says:
27 Oct 2006  at  08:48 am | #

Bearman,

What is significant about the article I cited is that Pepper has been elevated from a minor $1000 type player, to a $10,000 guy. Is it because Cranley may be leaving for D.C.? Are pro-gambling players still giving to Cranley? These are questions for another article at another time.

Beck’s investment focus seems to have changed since that article was written. That’s what makes it news.

Silly Warner says:
27 Oct 2006  at  08:52 am | #

The casino initiative is totally dead.  Pepper did almost nothing to support it except make a few statements.  You’re barking up the wrong tree.

Bearman says:
27 Oct 2006  at  09:00 am | #

Andrew, I look at it another way.  In May when Beck gave Pepper $1000 he figured Pepper might not have a chance to win.  Now in the summer it seemed more likely so he increased his “investment” What you seem to have a problem with is that Beck is seemingly buying Peppers support.  This is only an issue if you have Pepper using his office to benefit Beck directly.  Hasn’t happened yet.  He has only stated that he supports gambling in Ohio.  So do I.  Doesn’t mean I would be giving Beck the rights to put one up.  Then again it doesn’t matter because the gambling isn’t going to pass...not because many people don’t want it, but rather b/c as written it is crap.

Andrew Warner says:
27 Oct 2006  at  09:12 am | #

Bearman,

You’re ignoring the fact that Beck has given $1000 to Pepper multiple times. In his 2003 council run as well as his run for mayor. Now that he is about to replace a “values Republican” like Heimlich, suddenly $10,000 (plus the standard $1000 from earlier).

Besides, it wouldn’t be this gambling initiative. It would be a future gambling initiative.

Silly Warner says:
27 Oct 2006  at  09:19 am | #

Beck only gave $1,000 in those prior races because that was the contribution limit. That was all he could give.

S is for Socky says:
27 Oct 2006  at  10:40 am | #

Another great post, Dean!

anon says:
27 Oct 2006  at  10:53 am | #

Hank & Jane Heimlich kicked in $12,500 apiece for $25,000....

Hank and Jane never ponied up anything close to this for Phil before. Looks like “last hurrah” desperation time as the Heimlichs see Henry’s reputation and Phil’s career go sailing into the sunset.

Hank and Jane should be saving their money to pay for Phil’s legal defense. Best hope to see Phil investigated and indicted? Vote Pepper.

Howard Roark says:
27 Oct 2006  at  11:46 am | #

Yes they have, check the old campaign contribution reports....they gave $50,000 one year.

Andrew Warner says:
27 Oct 2006  at  02:32 pm | #

But David is such a staunch supporter of campaign finance reform! I recall him recounting noble tales about how even when there were no limits, he would impose them on himself.

I guess that theory has changed.

says:
27 Oct 2006  at  03:08 pm | #

Andy just mad that Pepper is a mainstream Dem who beat the unelectable Dumbass in the primary. He’s also mad that Pepper isn’t a Green. You know who the Greens are , don’t you? They are a fringe party that is entirely funded by Republicans in a scheme to divide the vote from Democratic candidates. Yes, they are a fringe party because they almost never get more than 2% of the vote. That’s the very definition of fringe.

anon says:
27 Oct 2006  at  05:50 pm | #

(Thought I’d repeat myself from another blog)

I’m no expert at reading these reports, but if I understand them right - if we use these reports as a view into how these guys will run the county- it seems Pepper can do more with far less and get better results than Heimlich.
And, if we look at the contributors we can clearly see who the candidates aim to serve - Pepper - pretty much spread out evenly all over the county and contributors from all walks of life. Whereas Heimlich’s campaign is doing alot of good for the eastside business and those that live on the eastside in upscale areas.
There were two questionable entries;
Rob Seddon has made out like a bandit. Even in June he was accepting “consulting fees” from Heimlich during a period when I thought he was working as a county employee. I think I’d like to see his time sheets and a description of the “consulting” he is doing.(What is this kid’s credentials anyway??)
The second entry finally answers some questions about Heimlich and his tendency to appoint personal friends and contributors to county committees - of course, I expected Finney the Fink inthere -that was old news. But, finally, confirmation that Crystal Faulkner - despite all the repeated denials - is a contributor to the Heimlich agenda.
That puts a whole new spin on the review they did of the jail tax situation considering she was another crooney “plant” by Heimlich ( and DeWine - remember , this corruption in Hamilton County takes two)into a county position of power and influence. Faulner’s leadership of that group’s work makes the jail recommendations suspect at the least and corrupt at the worst - but not matter what - they aren’t credible anymore. (Shame! What was Heimlich afraid of and why did DeWine tolerate it?)
Overall - a real disappointment.

Andrew Warner says:
27 Oct 2006  at  05:59 pm | #

I’m mad that Pepper beat someone in the primary? I didn’t even know he had a primary opponent.

You know the anti-slavery movement was considered fringe too Meeker? What about minimum wage laws and 40 hour work weeks? Also fringe. Social security?

You get the picture. Just because views aren’t espoused by a blind mob doesn’t mean that they don’t have merit.

Your claims about being funded entirely by Republicans are stupid. Even if that isolated incident is true, that is one state out of 50.

says:
27 Oct 2006  at  06:40 pm | #

Jim - speak the gospel. I have been saying that same thing about the green party for years (except with more jokes about patchouli oil).

says:
28 Oct 2006  at  05:33 am | #

Listen, both Pepper and Heimlich come from high profile, wealthy families.  Pepper has his own connections to outfits like 3CDC.  He just loved the idea for FSQ, though he never could remember the hard numbers. 

At the same time, Pepper is entering the Commission seat in a new era, of sorts.  He understands what it means to be watched by citizens.  He is sensitive to the power of the new media.  Phil got grandfathered in, so to speak, and he cannot handle things like citizen oversight and a media over which he has no influence.  That’s partly, I believe, why we have seen him having such a breakdown.  The game is changing.

Pepper has provided a rubric (his plans) against which we can easily measure his performance.  And if he’s going to chase the backroom, insider deals for his friends, he’ll have to be MUCH more careful about it, because, quite frankly, we’re onto that whole game.  And by “we” I don’t just mean The Beacon—but all of us who now, more than before, have our eyes open and a platform for spreading the word.

Andrew Warner supports the non-vote.  Admittedly, this is something I toyed with a few years past.  He says that when we compare the number of ballots cast in Hamilton County, and subtract for that the number of votes for Heimlich or Pepper, we will see how many people did not bother to vote for either—which will indicate for us how many people are sick and tired of both Democrats and Republicans.

I do understand the sentiment.  But I also understand that either Heimlich or Pepper is going to win.  I’m voting Pepper because I want Heimlich to lose, and because I think Pepper has set up a circumstance where he invites citizen oversight and participation with non-standard media.  I think that openness invites interesting possibilities, and is another reason I support him in this campaign.  So, I do admit that my support for him is not just an anti-Heimlich thing.  I do believe—for reasons that have more to do with citizen participation and media than with the third party cause—that he is a good candidate in that context.

Media activism is my primary focus; third party politics come second to that.

Andrew Warner says:
28 Oct 2006  at  07:17 am | #

Dean,

If I recall correctly you were a supporter of not- voting, period. Myself on the other hand, I support not voting for bad candidates (admittedly, bad is subjective – Phil and David may be good for some people).

Yes, either Pepper or Heimlich will be county commissioner after election day. Your need to pick a horse in that particular race, whether you particularly support a candidate, is based on instinct similar to a dog; reactionary and short-sighted.

Merely having a “rubric,” a much skimpier one than he provided when he ran for mayor when you endorsed two other candidates before him, is not an intelligent reason to support him. A more sophisticated support would be based on what the rubric contains, not merely that he has provided one.

Freedom Fighter says:
28 Oct 2006  at  10:20 am | #

Andrew - David

WARNER ?

Any bold connection ?


Andrew Warner says:
28 Oct 2006  at  10:55 am | #

David is my dad’s name. But my dad wouldn’t even know who Phil Heimlich is, let alone give him money.

David says:
28 Oct 2006  at  12:23 pm | #

I expect the useless drivel from Yossarian, but had thought Jim Meeker might have something worth while to say. Shame on you for referring to Stephanie Dumas as a dumb ass. She served this community for over 30 years in many ways and I know she’s done far more than the two of you dumbasses ever have. You have just shown us who the real dumbasses are. Dumas is a real Democrat, Pepper is just an oppurtunist.

By mainstream you must mean funded by corporations and special interests. We can’t wait to see your candidate in that seat. I’m sure he’ll solve all our problems just like he did at City Hall. Maybe he can secure more money for the Freedom Center, Convergys and 3CDC. That has obviously turned around the crime and population drain.

says:
28 Oct 2006  at  12:28 pm | #

Andrew, not voting for bad candidates—which is, in the context of single races, a non-vote (and besides, you have made clear you will not vote for Republicans nor Democrats)—means that you will not vote for the best candidate of those provided from which to choose (even if the choice is a long-shot).

Your inaction, therefore, is ethically culpable. 

Voting for the “less bad candidate,” as in someone voting for Strickland when they actually agree more with someone like Fitrakis, is ethically problematic, too.  The lesser-of-two evils argument is a hegemonic ploy to perpetuate the corporate duopoly. 

However, when there are only two options, one need not vote for the less-bad—instead, vote for the better.

Given the choice between Heimlich and Pepper, one should analyze their record, and their vision for the future.  It is my belief that Pepper is the better candidate over Heimlich.  Do you disagree?  I know you don’t like gambling, but are you a one issue voter?  Will you vote Heimlich—and all the other injustices he brings to the table—because you don’t like casinos?  If so, just say as much.

However, if you vote for neither, then you have failed to analyze each candidate to determine which is better—and if you fail to vote for the better candidate, you fail the purpose of the vote.  Your non-vote will not be registered or interpreted as a protest, and you will fail to make a point.  Do you wish to make it easier for independents to run for Commissioner?  I am happy to join in that quest, and it is something I’m thinking a lot about for after the election.

(Naturally, the debater in you can say that both candidates are equally unsuitable, but you have never made your case in that regard.  Instead, you just rail against Democrats for the sake of railing against Democrats.  And again, on a macro-scale I agree.  However, there are no other options for the Commissioner race.)

So, in short, if your powers of deduction tell you that one choice is superior to another, and you fail to take the best choice, then you are ethically culpable if the inferior option prevails.

Chuck says:
28 Oct 2006  at  12:55 pm | #

Dean, we have the illusion of choice. If you think it really matters if Pepper’s in the seat vs Heimlich than continue to support him, but don’t get on some high horse about it. If you vote the lesser evil, you’re still voting for evil. Don’t be fooled by Pepper’s rhetoric about open government. He’ll say whatever he needs to say to win, just like Mallory did.

Heimlich and Pepper are interchangeable. Trust funds, dadies name and money from the secret rulers that own our political process.

says:
28 Oct 2006  at  01:14 pm | #

Firstly, Chuck, your thinking does not cohere.  The “lesser-of-two evils” thing only works when people are afraid of choosing a third party.

So, for example, a progressive might actually like Fitrakis better than Strickland, but choose to vote Strickland anyway because they think he has a better chance of winning and he is not as bad as Blackwell.  In that case, the person chose the lesser evil of the two that might win, but not the choice that was actually the best.

However, when there are only two choices to make, then one must choose the best option.

I had hoped for a third option in this race, but Justin Jeffre decided not to run.

You are right in saying that Heimlich and Pepper both have trust funds, famous fathers, and so forth, but you are incorrect in saying that makes them equally bad candidates.

As for Mallory:  I’m still largely undecided about him.  Let’s see what happens for next year’s budget, the first budget fully decided upon by the new council.  Let’s see what campaign promises start to develop.

One thing is true:  he has, as promised, made himself more available to the new media.  Luken’s office never responded to any of my inquiries.  Mallory’s office includes me on press release lists, notifications for press events, etc.  And Jason Barron has responded quickly to some (but not all) of my inquiries.

I don’t mean this as an overall defense of Mallory, but fair is fair—the guy has done some of what he said, even if he has not done it all.  And we still have three years to go with the guy.  Lots can happen in that time.

Don’t worry, Chuck, 3CDC is on my shit list, and I think we’ll be able to shed some light on them when the election ends.  But the involvement and support of people like Pepper or even Bortz with 3CDC is obvious—totally unlike Heimlich and Finney, where we had to work for months to get anyone to notice that something was going on there.  Pepper does not run away with his tail between his legs when people ask questions of him, either.

So, trump up your rhetoric all you wish—but you are saying nothing unless you provide some substantiated arguments (even if I disagree, you should be able to provides SOME substance).  Is Pepper the better candidate?  If so, vote for him.  Is Heimlich better?  If so, vote for him.  Explain your answers.  If they are equally bad (or equally good), explain, with evidence based on real connections, the real record, or their actual plans.

Chuck says:
28 Oct 2006  at  01:37 pm | #

Dean, Heimlich has been in office longer and therefore has more dirt. That doesn’t make the younger fortunate son better. So you get press releases, that’s nice but they simply answer inquiries when it’s politicaly advantagous, otherwise it’s crickets.

It is up to the candidates that you support to have some SUBSTANCE. I’ve yet to hear any, but maybe you can refresh my memory. They both want the jail and whatever their paymasyers tell them they want. The lesser of two evils thing works the same if there’s an independent or not. The political donor class has two candidates, the rest of us have the opportunity to pretend we have a voice. Just because you vote, don’t let that stop you from doing something that really matters. I know you do, keep up the good work!

says:
28 Oct 2006  at  01:39 pm | #

Dean, Heimlich has been in office longer and therefore has more dirt. That doesn’t make the younger fortunate son better.

Likewise, that does not necessarily make the younger fortunate son worse, either.

For whom will you be voting, Chuck?  And if you say neither, how is that responsible?

Andrew Warner says:
28 Oct 2006  at  01:41 pm | #

The Dean,

You can not equivocate a non-vote with casting a ballot for neither. There are some who see two bad candidates and sit at home (more than half of the people in America probably).

Me, I physically took a ballot and voted for neither. I cast the ballot for those candidates in those races that represent me and my values. In races where I support neither candidate, I voted for neither candidate. Doing so would be intellectually dishonest and a gross compromise of principals (principals many will oppose as naive, but as of now they are essential to my life)

As you pointed out earlier, my non-vote will be reflected in the final ballot count.

If you cast a ballot for a candidate that does not represent you, but is “better” than the other candidate, you are affirming the validity of a flawed system. A flawed system you said you just want to change. Your vote for one of the candidates sends not only a message, but an actual vote of support to one of the two parties that restricts government in a way you find unacceptable.

If David Pepper performs his duty in an unethical manner, or even just a manner that does not represent your wishes as a citizen of Hamilton County, then you are now a supporter of that behavior because you were willing to make a philosophical compromise. That makes you an accomplice to any bad deal they cut (like the Fountain Square deal).

Granted, everyone will cast a vote that they regret. Politicians will do things that no one could predict, but such variables are not the topic of our current discussion. We are discussing a systematic approach to voting for candidates. Your system enables you to send representatives to the statehouse, White house, or Hamilton County Commissioner office that do not actually represent you as a citizen.

In a high-minded sense, though not necessarily your pragmatic approach, that is a lie, or misrepresentation, of sorts.

While I imagine your vote is primarily “against Phil,” you have essentially cast a ballot that says you approve of the Fountain Square deal and those who brokered it, the use of tasers as a “non-deadly” way to stop criminals (even children) though you have presented a better way time and time again (net-shot), the Convergys deal, managed competition that unions deplore, a new jail for the imprisonment of poor non-violent criminals (primarily African-Americans), casinos, and so on.

Is that representative of you? Or are you now complicit in supporting ideals contrary to your general philosophy?

My non-vote is utilizing the laws of the free-market. Hopefully someone will look at my lack of a vote in the commissioner’s race and realize there is a market that is not being tapped into by the status quo politicians. Hopefully some daring entrepreneur (in this case an aspiring politician) will take a risk and run for office in order to seize that vacant market.

You on the other hand are just giving more power and credibility to an establishment that you also want to change. If that isn’t illogical, I’m not sure what is.

Chuck says:
28 Oct 2006  at  02:04 pm | #

Dean, see Mr. Warner’s post, I agree with him and couldn’t have said it better. I don’t like Pepper’s past performance and see no reason to vote for him other than the anybody but Phil argument. That’s not an argument that persuades me very much. I will to continue to suppport candidates that share my values.

I will not hold my nose and become part of the problem. The problem isn’t that people don’t vote. The problem is a rigged political system that leaves us without a voice. Voting for the least worse candidate isn’t responsible. Staying true to your values is. When Peter Bronson and the Enquirer endorse a candidate, that should send you a red flag. Our secret rulers will get what they want and apparently so will you. Enjoy!

says:
28 Oct 2006  at  03:40 pm | #

Andrew Warner:

If you cast a ballot for a candidate that does not represent you, but is “better” than the other candidate, you are affirming the validity of a flawed system. A flawed system you said you just want to change. Your vote for one of the candidates sends not only a message, but an actual vote of support to one of the two parties that restricts government in a way you find unacceptable.

I do not believe the system will be changed because someone sees that a few people who cast ballots voted for neither Heimlich nor Pepper.  I think the system will be changed by people who actively work to reform it.

And, regardless as to who wins between Pepper and Heimlich, I have some ideas about how to change County government as a citizen activist.  I’ll tell you tonight over drinks.  But, in the meanwhile, someone is going to win.  The person who wins might as well be the best candidate.  My vote does not affirm the validity of anything.  If it did, then it does not make sense that as soon as casting a ballot I can work to reform the system.  But the casting of ballots, in my view, does not constitute the vehicle for reform.  So, vote for the best candidate, and then act for change.

(Actually, I will probably vote for Wulsin, because Nate Noy is even crazier than Schmidt.)

My non-vote is utilizing the laws of the free-market. Hopefully someone will look at my lack of a vote in the commissioner’s race and realize there is a market that is not being tapped into by the status quo politicians. Hopefully some daring entrepreneur (in this case an aspiring politician) will take a risk and run for office in order to seize that vacant market.

Our friend Justin Jeffre thought of just that possibility, and he decided to run for County Commissioner.  He knew that Pepper only needed something like 50 signatures to get on the ballot.  But to run as an independent, Jeffre would have needed to gather something like 4 or 5 thousand signatures.  This daring entrepreneur you envision will be in for a rude and unreasonable awakening when s/he encounters this injustice!  As I said, vote for the best candidate now, and then work to change these requirements for next time…

You on the other hand are just giving more power and credibility to an establishment that you also want to change. If that isn’t illogical, I’m not sure what is.

What’s illogical is how you act like non-voting will take power away from the corrupt system, when you already know that voting in our culture is at markedly low numbers.  If what you claim is true, it stands to reason that the revolution is happening because of the non-vote! 

But look around!  This is not the case!  The fewer who vote, the more the corporate power brokers have tightened their grip!

Vote for the best candidate of the options available.  Then, work for further change.  That is what I plan to do.

says:
28 Oct 2006  at  03:43 pm | #

Chuck, will you be voting for Wulsin, just because you like some of what she does while recognizing her other injustices?

Just curious how that relates to your approach to the Pepper/Heimlich race.

Andrew Warner says:
28 Oct 2006  at  03:54 pm | #

What?s illogical is how you act like non-voting will take power away from the corrupt system, when you already know that voting in our culture is at markedly low numbers.  If what you claim is true, it stands to reason that the revolution is happening because of the non-vote!

No Jason. You’re equivocating staying at home to casting a ballot and excluding races where there are only bad choices.

Point being, that if 1000 people cast ballots for governor (where there are all sorts of choices), but only 200 vote for the Commission (where there are only 2 choices), then a significant voting block has been formed for a willing candidate to seize. This is a point I already explained, but you chose to ignore to favor your flimsy argument.

As soon as you cast a vote for one of these two candidates, you have accomplished nothing other than helping a bad candidate and a bad party.

Chuck says:
28 Oct 2006  at  04:11 pm | #

No, I don’t live in the right district to not vote for Wulsin. I do give her credit for being for universal health care though. Will you vote for her?

I won’t vote for Cranley because he’s not taking the right position on the war. Chabot sucks, but I pledged to only support candidates that want to bring the troops home. That’s important, just like my opposition to the jail is important to me.

Real change usually doesn’t come from the ballot box, but it is a place to hold people accountable. We’ll just have to disagree on this one.

says:
28 Oct 2006  at  04:18 pm | #

No, Chuck, you have a responsibility to either make sense, or to change your perspective to one that does.

How, exactly, does it make sense to withhold a vote for the better candidate in any given election?

ONE ADVOCATE says:
28 Oct 2006  at  04:36 pm | #

THere is no way anyone could reseaonably say that Heimlich and Pepper have anything in common except family wealth.  They are day and night - and I, personally, am tired of being in the dark with Heimlich.

We are talking about a difference in fundamental principles of governance here.  Heimlich hides behind closed door meetings and the skirts of unscrupulous friends who have the courage (?) to perform the vindicative, selfish and self serving interests of the few’s dirty work, there have been a plethora of secret negotiations and behind the scenes deals, there has been an altering of our community values.

Skeptisism is one thing - this best of two evils argument regarding Heimlich and Pepper - is crap.

I reiterate an earlier comment; Pepper’s campaign would appear onthe surface to be “dirty politics” EXCEPT HIS CLAIMS AGAINST HEIMLICH ARE TRUE!!!!!

says:
28 Oct 2006  at  04:40 pm | #

David, you are right, and I apologize for the comment. It was juvenile and uncalled for. I do believe though that Ms. Dumas would not have has a chance against Heimlich. She would have been buried by the big money that turned out against her, and since she wasn’t able to raise money for her primary run she could not have competed against the corrupt Heimlich.

Chuck says:
29 Oct 2006  at  07:18 pm | #

Sorry you don’t get the point Dean. Who would you choose, Hitler or Stalin? One has to be the better candidate, right? It’s your responsibility to pick one.

Mr. Meeker, that’s my point. It’s the special interests that decide who “our” candidates are and they won’t choose anyone that isn’t down with their program or that they don’t own. The Enquirer finds both of these candidates good. Dumas barely got any coverage and when she did it was negative. Yes, she was buried by the big money and the media, just like all the good candidates.

One advocate, of course this isn’t the first negative campaigning from Pepper. Pretending Pepper is our savior is pure crap. He supports the jail and the cities draconian marijuana laws to fill them up. He’s the king of corporate welfare and is 3CDCs best friend. (3CDC is our unaccountable planning department)

It’s your burden to make the case for him, not mine. I’ve seen enough and will vote for none of the above. If the majority of people voted like that, we could start over with a new field of candidates.

Howard Roark says:
30 Oct 2006  at  01:19 pm | #

Pam Daly (wife of Mike Daly) = $5,000

What is more telling is number of old Heimlich contributors who are now giving to Pepper.

How is McNamara making $52/hr? He’s made $33,500 in 16 weeks.

Rob Seddon pulled in $10,052 with all of that except $750 coming from 9.13.-6 - 10.12.06, or one month.

Little Faulkner dropped out of existence in mid-August, but still pulled down $6,375.

How are they only paying $450/ month for rent in a newly renovated building in one of hottest areas for office space? Class A office space in Blue Ash is going for about $23 per sq ft. At those rates, their office would be 20 sq. ft.

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

<b>

<i>

<u>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: