Abolishing the mayor position is just silly.

The position I described literally did not exist until December 2001.

Also wouldn't have to commission an new body sash that says "MAYOR" on it after each election.

Abolishing the mayor position is just silly.

 

+1

Abolishing the mayor position is just silly.

The position I described literally did not exist until December 2001.

 

I know. I just think that a city should have an independently elected mayor. I thought it was silly it took us until 2001 to change that system.

 

Just because we don't like the guy in office now doesn't mean that the position is bad.

 

I argued for council to alternate so there are still elections every 2 years, but only 4 or 5 would be elected each time. That way council can still change as the peoples' opinions of them change, but it isn't as hectic or petty as with 2 year terms.

^You think it is less hectic and petty now that there are four year terms?

This is a single data point. It's unfortunate the election turned out this way, but you can't tell a trend from the first occurence.

^Actually, you can, that's where it starts.  The reasoning used by 4 year term supporters was always a priori, i.e. inferential reason without experience.  The argument was that less campaigning would result in better outcomes.  You seem to be arguing that it would result in more better outcomes than the previous regime.  We already know that, compared the immediately previous two year council, it has resulted in worse outcomes.  We've given up the right to make course corrections sooner for a regime that, as you state, may still prove to result in more better outcomes.  So we literally have to wait twelve more years to determine this by your standard.

 

The problem with the four year terms was that they were never going to do what the supporters said they were going to do.  The dynamics of council are fed by: (1) the number of councilors- nine; and (2) the size of the district in which they must campaign- citywide.  Unless these elements of the regime are tinkered with, you will still get the same 5-4 or 6-3 splits

Great article about Cranky

While he says he has a lot of support from the business community, the Courier says they sure can't find it.

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/12/18/opinion-what-we-now-know-about-our.html

^Actually, you can, that's where it starts.  The reasoning used by 4 year term supporters was always a priori, i.e. inferential reason without experience.  The argument was that less campaigning would result in better outcomes.  You seem to be arguing that it would result in more better outcomes than the previous regime.  We already know that, compared the immediately previous two year council, it has resulted in worse outcomes.  We've given up the right to make course corrections sooner for a regime that, as you state, may still prove to result in more better outcomes.  So we literally have to wait twelve more years to determine this by your standard.

 

The problem with the four year terms was that they were never going to do what the supporters said they were going to do.  The dynamics of council are fed by: (1) the number of councilors- nine; and (2) the size of the district in which they must campaign- citywide.  Unless these elements of the regime are tinkered with, you will still get the same 5-4 or 6-3 splits

^

And you don't want that for four year terms

From Senate's Facebook page (they have a different special hot dog every day and are located in OTR):

 

SENATE Restaurant

 

Today's dog is....The "John Cranley" he's a plain hotdog on a bun with no reasoning behind it.

 

Some of the hilarious comments:

 

Jeff Craig: He's no hot dog. But he is a wiener.

 

Joseph Tansino: Will the hotdog also cost more if you leave it unfinished?

 

Tricia Bateman: You should charge 90% of the cost and then not make it.

From Senate's Facebook page (they have a different special hot dog every day and are located in OTR):

 

SENATE Restaurant

 

Today's dog is....The "John Cranley" he's a plain hotdog on a bun with no reasoning behind it.

 

Some of the hilarious comments:

 

Jeff Craig: He's no hot dog. But he is a wiener.

 

Joseph Tansino: Will the hotdog also cost more if you leave it unfinished?

 

Tricia Bateman: You should charge 90% of the cost and then not make it.

 

Hilarious!

Order any hot dog on the menu, get served half a bun. No refund.

You know, Cranley could have played this very differently yesterday; he could have claimed victory and said that the pause caused $9 million in private funding and more to come for operating costs to materialize.

 

Instead, he basically doubled down by saying that he still didn't support the streetcar.

 

He must honestly believe that the streetcar will be a failure, because he just staked his reputation on it.

With all the private meetings & dealings, I have no idea how this clown can say he's being transparent.

You know, Cranley could have played this very differently yesterday; he could have claimed victory and said that the pause caused $9 million in private funding and more to come for operating costs to materialize.

 

Instead, he basically doubled down by saying that he still didn't support the streetcar.

 

He must honestly believe that the streetcar will be a failure, because he just staked his reputation on it.

 

Totally agree.  There was a way for him to turn this around and end up looking pretty good; he didn't choose that way.

He must honestly believe that the streetcar will be a failure, because he just staked his reputation on it.

Actually, he doesn't care if it is a failure or not by objective standards, because he doesn't care about objectivity or truth.

 

Any of the numerous statements Cranley made over the course of these past three weeks or so show how this guy just b.s.es left and right- pause doesn't equall cancellation; independent audit is necessary; operations costs are the problem, etc.  But the best example was his response to the ironworkers testimony yesterday.  As soon as those guys are finished pleading for their jobs he says that he'll get work for them repaving roads.  Problem is, this isn't the 19th century where politicians can just give regular municipal jobs to whomever they'd like; also, these guys are ironworkers, not road repair guys.  Cranley knows all this.

 

Thats what Cranley has learned from being a politician for ten years- b.s. anything that you can.  That's a lot different from spinning, where you accept the premise that's being given but try and make something look positive.  It's ignoring the other person as human worthy of respect, and it's really, really bad.

Do iron workers pave roads anyway?

I give up trying to rationalize anything Cranley does. I just hope Cincy can move forward in spite of him.

 

At least he has enough brains to know when he was licked and stepped back. Some people never realize that.

I try to be a bit more circumspect when making comments using my FB account, but I howled when I read this comment yesterday on cincinnati.com in reply to its editorial,  http://news.cincinnati.com/comments/article/20131219/EDIT01/312200027/EDITORIAL-Streetcar-saga-gets-its-happy-ending :

 

"Mayor John Cranley gets credit for consistency and expressing legitimate concerns. He inherited a mess not of his making....."

 

Sorry Enquirer. Cranley inherited a project that was ahead of schedule, and on budget. That is not a mess. The only mess is his continued grandstanding instead of leading.

 

The guy will go down as the worst Cincinnati mayor in over a century. You can't lead by being an abrasive dick. Few people like this man, and many more are just flat out scared of him. When Santa Ono and our Fortune 500 executives won't go on the record about the streetcar you know this is a guy that just won't get things done.

 

Luckily for him, his wife makes all the big bucks owning Gold Star Chili. I think being mayor is just a game to Cranley, something for him to do to get out of the house. Let's not make the same mistake again. PG for mayor in 2017.

 

 

His old lady is in the Gold Star fam? The Business Courier reported some Gold Star exec was opposed to the streetcar a year or so ago - maybe that's who is pulling the strings.

Gold Star is owned by Jordanians.  As indicated by his facebook photos, Cranley has visited many wealthy people around the Middle East.  Like, people living in compounds in the desert with armed guards in turrets.  So is oil money funding Cranley's imminent congressional run?

Gold Star is owned by Jordanians.  As indicated by his facebook photos, Cranley has visited many wealthy people around the Middle East.  Like, people living in compounds in the desert with armed guards in turrets.  So is oil money funding Cranley's imminent congressional run?

 

Sounds a little outstetched to me. Not saying it is wrong. But do you have any data to back these accusations up? Sounds like a perfect case of personal liability to me unless you can back this up. I would be a little cautious.

^Clearly YANAL

MTV used to run a Saturday program called The Week in Rock.  I think we need The Week in Cranley:

 

 

 

FALSE:

 

 

 

 

Gold Star is owned by Jordanians.  As indicated by his facebook photos, Cranley has visited many wealthy people around the Middle East.  Like, people living in compounds in the desert with armed guards in turrets.  So is oil money funding Cranley's imminent congressional run?

 

As much as I hate to think about it, shutting Cranley away in Congress might be the best place for him. At least there he might be accountable to his political party, and if he want to play ball in his district, he's going to have to stay Democrat. It'd at least minimize the damage he'd cause on a local level.... That is, Unless he goes full-Chabot and starts railing against money being sent to his constituency.

As someone who supports the streetcar, and knows the David family personally... don't be ignorant.  You are letting your distaste for Cranley's politics make you sound like a poster on cincinnati.com

 

Gold Star is owned by Jordanians.  As indicated by his facebook photos, Cranley has visited many wealthy people around the Middle East.  Like, people living in compounds in the desert with armed guards in turrets.  So is oil money funding Cranley's imminent congressional run?

 

 

I doubt a Cincinnati mayor has much to do offer middle eastern oil barons. I WAS thinking the boy might be more of a Rod Blagojevich, tho.

As someone who supports the streetcar, and knows the David family personally... don't be ignorant.  You are letting your distaste for Cranley's politics make you sound like a poster on cincinnati.com

 

Gold Star is owned by Jordanians.  As indicated by his facebook photos, Cranley has visited many wealthy people around the Middle East.  Like, people living in compounds in the desert with armed guards in turrets.  So is oil money funding Cranley's imminent congressional run?

 

A lot of Smitherman's relatives are really nice people.  It's hard to believe that such a demon hatched from the same genes and social environment. 

 

Nothing happens by chance with Cranley.  His mind's sole concern is power and he absolutely would not pass on a chance to expand its potential by marrying someone from a poor family on the Appalachian hillsides overlooking the Western Hills Viaduct.

 

Perhaps Cranley's most disgusting personal trait is his willingness to lie and trick older people.  Just imagine the sweet talking he lavishes upon his in-laws! 

 

 

I'm willing to bet that Cranley himself ghost-wrote this letter to the Enquirer:

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/letters/2013/12/20/cranley-voters-were-misled-by-council-members/#comments

I like how they didn't fix the typos.

When he ghost-writes letters and citizen comments, Cranley attempts to get "folksy" while rattling off talking points in perfect order.  It's like if the Mrs. Butterworth syrup bottle were to start talking. 

I think that's actually happened to me before but Cranley wasn't involved.

Not sure if it's true or if you've discussed this earlier, but someone recently told me that Cranley's divinity degree is just an honorary one -- something bestowed on him for some extra-curricular activity he performed in school or maybe as a favor done for being a pet.  Anyway, I was told it's not really uncommon for Harvard to do this kind of thing to help a grad pad his curriculum-vitae.

An old Cincinnati Beacon article from 2007:

 

Exposed!  Cranley’s Contribution Loophole

 

Cincinnati City Councilman John Cranley has discovered a loophole in the city’s campaign finance reform rules which allow an individual to write multiple checks to a candidate and far exceed the $1000 limit.  An August 2, 2005 opinion by the Cincinnati Election Commission in response to a question by his campaign states that an individual who owns multiple “limited liability” companies can make a thousand dollar contribution to a candidate from each company, as well as individually.  So if an individual owns, say 5 such companies, that person can contribute up to $6,000 to one candidate. [...]

 

John Cranley’s 2005 list of contributors gives an example of how this may work in practice.  The Cincinnati Election Commission records that a Dan Schimberg wrote a check for $500 from Aristo Properties, LLC on July 27, 2005 after a Dan Schimberg wrote a check personally for $1000 on April 29.  Further research shows that it is likely that these two checks were written by the same Dan Schimberg.

^I seem to recall seeing his name on both Cranley's and Qualls' donor lists this time around.  Some people like to hedge their bets.

 

IMO the loophole pointed out in the Beacon article isn't effectively much different than when a wealthy donor uses several family members' names as donors to get around campaign contribution limits.  I've seen this a lot, going back many years.

 

 

Dan Schimberg owns Uptown Properties, so it makes perfect sense that he would support both campaigns.  He wants city money for his future projects, and he needed to be in the good graces of both of the potential candidates.

 

Mayor Awkward Cranley. He only mentioned Gold Star once.

 

http://www.bengals.com/media-lounge/videos/Mayor_John_Cranley_Support_Cincinnati/7ab114cd-3333-4eba-b223-7472c76e3909

Painful to watch.  Shows you that this guy has one switch and it is stuck on "politician".  He can't even conjure up playfulness or a sense of humor. 

 

I bought tickets.  $86 a piece! 

 

We're sending Gold Star.  At my expense, not taxpayer expense.  I can see the spin now - John Cranley: Protecting the city pension. 

 

Or: No police/fire eliminated in Mayor bet.  Cranley: Good steward of city gambling fund.

 

 

Everything he wagers is old Cincinnati.

There's no Morlein to offer? No bacon schmecken?

Yep, you have to know your place and he doesn't. You just shouldn't show at that press conference in a suit, even if you are mayor.

 

And jeez, do you really need to read from a script there?  I wonder if he discussed talking points with Marvin before.

Yep.  Reading from a script was the cherry.

 

And bigger picture I'm just not sure what drove that appearance.  I'd like to have heard how that convo went and who was involved.

His tie is Bills colors. 

Budget Director Lea Erikson is leaving for Long Beach, CA to do the same thing.

She was, of course, one of Cranley's "incompetents"

yeah

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/finance/about-finance-budget/budget-director/

Will Cranley's reign wind up being a 'brain drain' for the city?

^Yes, sadly.

Jeff Ruby tweeted today: "It's so cold I just saw John Cranley with his hands in his own pockets". 

 

Cranley's alienated so many, including talented civil servants, business leaders, fellow Democrats, Republicans, Tea Partiers (except for CO@$T, who on 12/21/13 posted on their blog an item entitled "Cranley Held Firm" -- to which no one replied!) -- and he's only been mayor for a month.

 

I noticed on Local 12's Newsmakers this past Sunday that he made a point of pandering to African-Americans by saying he would work to increase the numbers of middle-class blacks, hire more police to reduce crime against young children, etc.  When Dan Hurley asked him what he could do to increase the black middle-class, he said by steering more contracts to minority contractors.  But aren't they mostly middle-class already?

yes

and Ruby endorsed Cranley

Wow he really is talking of selling the railroad.  Well at least people under him.

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?NoCache=1&Dato=20140109&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=301090134&Ref=AR

^The article says Cranley's not in favor of selling.  It doesn't sound like Winburn's idea to sell has any support on council.

 

On the other hand, it looks like Cranley really blundered and made a very costly mistake when he abruptly halted the parking deal.  While I didn't like the extended hours of enforcement that were proposed, I didn't feel strongly about it.  Mainly, I disliked it because I thought it was politically tone deaf to push it right before the election knowing it would seriously hurt Qualls' chances of winning.  Now it seems we may end up with a parking deal, however without the windfall of $85M.  Why am I not surprised?

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20140105/NEWS01/301050028/Changes-possible-city-s-parking-system

 

I don't know how the city can afford Cranley's mismanagement:  First the parking deal (for now, let's just say he lost the city $85M); then the bungling of the City Manager position which, according to Yvette Simpson, would've been less expensive if Milton Dohoney were retained until a new manager was hired; and then the streetcar audit and pause ($2-5M).  If it weren't for the Streetcar Six, another $50-80M plus litigation costs would've also been lost -- and he's only been mayor for a little more than a month!

 

This man's incompetence is alarming.  He seems to mistake grandstanding for governance.  Emulating his mentor Tom Luken just isn't going to work anymore - gone are the days when a hack can get away with poor performance so easily.  I hope for the sake of our city that he shapes up, but I fear he may be irredeemable.

^I'd be more concerned if his working coalition didn't break down so quickly.  I find it hard to believe that there would be any support on this council to sell the railroad, even if Cranley were pushing for it.

 

It's a mistake to think that Qualls lost because she pushed "unpopular" policies.  The streetcar proved to be quite popular when the chips were down.  Both Qualls & Cranley were very well known, and only 28% of eligible voters showed upt to vote for some relatively prominent politicians.  I think it's more indicative of how little City residents seem to believe local politicians work for them than it was about any specific policy.

yes

and Ruby endorsed Cranley

 

As we know, Ruby is an ardent streetcar opponent and is miffed that Cranley didn't kill it.  But would he have located his namesake restaurant at 7th and Walnut were it not for the multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded Aronoff Center for the Performing Arts right across the street?  I doubt it.