Over the past few days, people have been circulating screenshots of Cranley's gaffe back in 2015 when he said that Cincinnati would not take in Syrian refugees and that “the federal government should halt its actions until the American people can be assured that exhaustive vetting has occurred.” I think this got under his skin.

 

Cranley's big strategic decision is whether he stays silent on social issues and pretends to be a fiscal conservative and re-captures the Republicans who voted for him in 2013, or if he comes out in support of progressive social causes and tries to take some votes away from Simpson and Richardson. Apparently he has decided to go the later route.

Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel will join Monzel and Winburn to oppose the City of Cincinnati's declaration that it's a sanctuary city and will outline their position today at a 1:15 PM press conference.

In his Iraq-era congressional runs against Chabot, he was anti-Bush, anti-big oil.  There was no conviction in his voice and he gave no impression of being a man of action.  So he lost. 

The sanctuary city thing came from majority D cities in majority D states.  Completely foolish for the D's to pressure Cranley into doing this.  This is a gift for sidelined Republicans across the country. 

I can't stand cranley, but he usually has some sort of long term goal in mind. He got elected by becoming a pseudo-conservative. It's possible that he realizes this won't work again now that winburn is running, and that he may not make it out of the primary. If so, expect him to tout this during a future run for state office, knowing that most voters at the state level will be ignorant of everything he's pulled on a local level.  This + 2016 photos with Hillary + a few more staged events = liberal democrat contender?

The Rest of the State is completely clueless to Cincinnati politics.

Is Cincinnati politics worse/more frustrating/more dysfunctional than Columbus and Cleveland for anyone who knows?  I simply can't stand it most of the time

 

If Cranley really cared about the city and the success of the streetcar for example, he would sit down everyone involved with the streetcar in a one hour meeting and say "Where are the choke points, how do we fix them, let's fix them now".  It's just so much up and down and back and forth over the most frivelous sh**. 

 

I wasn't used to bigger city politics coming from Cedar Rapids, IA, but everything always ran smooth there, and the republicans are really democrats there.  Eastern Iowa is actually a fairly liberal area overall.  In Iowa City, IA though they have the worst NIMBYism I've seen first hand.  There was a huge NIMBY group called CATS, standing for "Coalition Against The Shadows" that succesfully blocked/delayed/downsized about 4 different 250' tall or thereabouts residential and commercial towers because of the shadows they would cast on surrounding areas (Iowa City is building out it's downtown from it's original borders.  Though the Iowa City / Cedar Rapids CSA is only about 450k, Iowa City side of it is growing about 10% every 10 years, and they need to build up and got the money to, they are like a massive thorn in all development there.

If Cranley really cared about the city and the success of the streetcar for example, he would sit down everyone involved with the streetcar in a one hour meeting and say "Where are the choke points, how do we fix them, let's fix them now".  It's just so much up and down and back and forth over the most frivelous sh**. 

 

 

Cranley does not care about the city.  He's thought he was big-time since he was 7 or 8 years old and is frustrated that he hasn't left city office far behind him.  Remember, he ran for congress at age 26.  Because this guy is SO SMART and SO AMAZING. 

Is Cincinnati politics worse/more frustrating/more dysfunctional than Columbus and Cleveland for anyone who knows?  I simply can't stand it most of the time

 

 

IDK much about Cleveland politics, but Columbus is screwed up in a totally different way. Everything's a secret and way too much effort is spent trying to resuscitate 1960s areas.

Cincinnati's politics are totally different because our government is based on a City Charter that is grandfathered in under state law ... new Ohio cities aren't allowed to have a charter. So there is always a battle going on about power and procedures.

 

For example, there was a conversation back in 2013 about whether we could have a recall election for the Mayor. No one knew because the City Charter doesn't lay out a recall procedure. Some people speculated that it would fall back to the state's recall procedure for elected officials, but no one knew for sure. It would probably have to be tested in court.

 

Also, the non-political City Manager is supposed to control the day-to-day operations of the city, and is supposed to have ten bosses (the mayor + the 9 council members). But in practice, the Mayor tells the City Manager what to do. This is because the Mayor has the ability to appoint and fire the City Manager. City Council gets to confirm, but does not have the power to initiate hiring or firing. So there really is no reason for the City Manager to listen to the City Council's wishes. Even when the City Council passes a motion saying at the City Manager should do something, the current City Manager has ignored those motions.

 

The Mayor also gets to decide which Council committees get to hear which issues, which allows him to kill certain issues in committee before they get to full council. It also allows the mayor to "pocket veto" any issue by never referring it to a committee.

 

In my opinion, our system puts way too much power into the hands of the Mayor, even though the Mayor is not supposed to be a "strong mayor" in our system.

In my opinion, our system puts way too much power into the hands of the Mayor, even though the Mayor is not supposed to be a "strong mayor" in our system.

 

I agree that the mayor's de facto authority over the city manager, combined with the control over council's agenda and committee chair appointments is "too much power" or at least not the right balance of power. The current system has given rise to a mayor that wields power through the idiosyncrasies of the system, rather than solely through an enumerated set of powers. I take the position (and I know this is debatable) that converting to a true strong mayor system could in effect reduce the mayor's power. This scenario imagines that the mayor replaces the city manager as the executive, but loses all of the legislative authority aside from the official veto. Council would elect a president of council that sets the agenda and appoints committee chairs.   

I think our current political system would be "fixed" with the following changes:

 

- Add a City Council President position. This could either be the City Council member that receives the most votes, or City Council could vote to choose their own president. All new legislation will go to City Council President who will assign it to a committee. Preferably the law would require them to refer it to a committee within a certain number of days so that they don't have a "pocket veto" power. I'm not sure what you do about the Vice Mayor role in this scenario. Maybe you just eliminate it and the Council President is #2 in the line of succession, so to speak.

- City Council gains the ability to initiate the firing of the City Manager. Preferably would require a supermajority vote to actually execute the firing.

- City Council needs the power to hold Executive Sessions so that they can be briefed on economic development deals or other sensitive matters behind closed doors. Right now this is not permitted. So the Mayor and City Manager make deals behind closed doors (i.e., giving tax breaks to a company if they agree to create x number of jobs in the city) and bring them to City Council for an up/down vote. City Council doesn't get to be part of the negotiating process.

- City Council terms need to be staggered. Our current system is way too volatile since every single position is up for re-election every fourth year. Any state or county issue that happens to be on the ballot at the same time can end up swinging City elections to one extreme or the other. I do think that 4-year City Council terms are an improvement over the old 2-year terms. However we need to elect the mayor + 4 council members one year, and the remaining 5 council members two years later.

I think our current political system would be "fixed" with the following changes:

 

- Add a City Council President position. This could either be the City Council member that receives the most votes, or City Council could vote to choose their own president. All new legislation will go to City Council President who will assign it to a committee. Preferably the law would require them to refer it to a committee within a certain number of days so that they don't have a "pocket veto" power. I'm not sure what you do about the Vice Mayor role in this scenario. Maybe you just eliminate it and the Council President is #2 in the line of succession, so to speak.

- City Council gains the ability to initiate the firing of the City Manager. Preferably would require a supermajority vote to actually execute the firing.

- City Council needs the power to hold Executive Sessions so that they can be briefed on economic development deals or other sensitive matters behind closed doors. Right now this is not permitted. So the Mayor and City Manager make deals behind closed doors (i.e., giving tax breaks to a company if they agree to create x number of jobs in the city) and bring them to City Council for an up/down vote. City Council doesn't get to be part of the negotiating process.

- City Council terms need to be staggered. Our current system is way too volatile since every single position is up for re-election every fourth year. Any state or county issue that happens to be on the ballot at the same time can end up swinging City elections to one extreme or the other. I do think that 4-year City Council terms are an improvement over the old 2-year terms. However we need to elect the mayor + 4 council members one year, and the remaining 5 council members two years later.

 

I completely agree about the executive sessions. The current prohibition achieves the ironic effect of more secrecy because the deals are all cut behind the scenes.

 

I'm trying to separate any personal feelings about the current mayor from proposed adjustments to the system. Does a city manager that answers directly to council create a more "democratic" or more "political" system? I think you get trade-offs. I don't know if you get more transparency or more indecision if the city manager feels it has 2 bosses. The reason I like the idea of an executive mayor is that it clarifies authority and, therefore, blame.

 

I don't like the current system because of the grey area. I think the above system would still have too much grey. If we want a true council/manager government then we should go back to the old system. If we want a separately-elected mayor with some executive power, then the mayor should be the actual executive of the city.

 

Edit: I do agree that staggering the council terms could be a good thing. I would also be open to creating wards for a portion of the seats.

For example, there was a conversation back in 2013 about whether we could have a recall election for the Mayor. No one knew because the City Charter doesn't lay out a recall procedure. Some people speculated that it would fall back to the state's recall procedure for elected officials, but no one knew for sure. It would probably have to be tested in court.

 

I believe the charter has a section that specifies what happens if a Mayor is incapacitated or removed, but there is no corresponding section detailing what removal/recall means or how that process would work.  So it's implied, but never specified.  Totally agree that it would go to court.

 

- City Council terms need to be staggered. Our current system is way too volatile since every single position is up for re-election every fourth year. Any state or county issue that happens to be on the ballot at the same time can end up swinging City elections to one extreme or the other. I do think that 4-year City Council terms are an improvement over the old 2-year terms. However we need to elect the mayor + 4 council members one year, and the remaining 5 council members two years later.

 

I was shocked when I found out that this wasn't the way it ended up being laid out when they switched from 2 to 4 years.  I just assumed it would alternate between 4+Mayor and 5 councilmembers because that's just so obvious.

Charlie's polling indicates:

 

"If I run, John Cranley and Charlie Winburn will come out of the primary, and Cranley beats me in the general election 52 (percent) to 48 (percent)," Winburn told The Enquirer. "If I don't run, Cranley is going to win in a landslide. As of today, John's got the numbers."

 

so... Winburn decides not to run for mayor

 

 

I'm not sure if Charlie Winburn realizes this, but usually when you run for office, you make an effort to win. If he actually is convinced that he'd make it out of the primary, why wouldn't he run and then try hard to win the general?

John Cranley is officially kicking off his campaign today. As he suggested back in 2013, time to shut down all major decision making at city hall until citizens can have their say.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2013/05/15/cranley-says-police-chief-search.html

Cranley is advocating for a county-wide ballot to help fund the bus system, through a half-cent sales tax and a roll back of the earnings tax from 2.1 to 1.9 percent:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/21/progressive-cranley-all--bus-tax/98203308/

 

In attempting to show he is progressive, Cranley plans to go all-in on a Hamilton County sales tax increase to support the area’s transit system. His idea: put a half-cent-per-dollar sales tax to county voters, partially roll back the earnings tax and spend the remainder of the earnings tax on city infrastructure.

 

Specifically, Cranley is calling for a half-cent sales tax, which would bring in $75 million a year. The earnings tax, which brings in roughly $50 million for the bus system, would no longer pay for it. Instead, Cranley proposes rolling it back from 2.1 percent to 1.9 percent.

 

This plan, he said, would mean more bus service, lower taxes and more money for roads and infrastructure.

 

The Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority is considering putting a sales tax to voters in November, but the agency’s board has not yet made a decision. It’s a high bar to pass a sales tax in the county, with even longtime transit proponent Hamilton County Commission Todd Portune saying now is not the time. A firm hired to look at funding option told the board last month a half cent isn’t enough.

^And that accomplishes little to improve bus service if it passes.

To Cranley it isn't about improving bus service. It's about shifting the funding source from the city to the county. Anyone who lives in the city will see a earnings tax cut and will save money overall, even as sales tax rises.

Anyone here ever see/hear this? It has a couple of jems in it with the Mayor trying to gain his urban mayor street cred. I love how his alternate plan to the streetcar was the redbikes (im sure he stole the credit from someone too) where he imagines a sea of commuters biking up the hill every day saving the city hundreds of millions vs the streetcar. Also his pedestrian friendly development in Price Hill? The incline Theatre and the Incline house is what he is referring to? I mean they are across  the street from each other, so i guess it isnt like you have to cross a moat of pedestrian UNfriendly alligators. If you dont read anything else, atleast read the bonkers last paragraph. http://www.urbanophile.com/interviews/cincinnati-mayor-john-cranley/

 

To Cranley it isn't about improving bus service. It's about shifting the funding source from the city to the county. Anyone who lives in the city will see a earnings tax cut and will save money overall, even as sales tax rises.

 

This seems counter to Cranley's "run for the mayor of the suburbs" strategy.

This seems counter to Cranley's "run for the mayor of the suburbs" strategy.

 

Because his polling shows he'll lose without more democratic/progressive support.

^I suppose I was thinking about his 2013 strategy. That's back when WLW was going bonkers for him and running all that anti-streetcar content.

Anyone here ever see/hear this? It has a couple of jems in it with the Mayor trying to gain his urban mayor street cred. I love how his alternate plan to the streetcar was the redbikes (im sure he stole the credit from someone too) where he imagines a sea of commuters biking up the hill every day saving the city hundreds of millions vs the streetcar. Also his pedestrian friendly development in Price Hill? The incline Theatre and the Incline house is what he is referring to? I mean they are across  the street from each other, so i guess it isnt like you have to cross a moat of pedestrian UNfriendly alligators. If you dont read anything else, atleast read the bonkers last paragraph. http://www.urbanophile.com/interviews/cincinnati-mayor-john-cranley/

 

 

He did steal credit for redbike, and I'm sure under mallory the locations would have been better...

First debate signals a lively Cincinnati mayor’s race to come

 

If Tuesday’s first encounter between the three candidates for Cincinnati mayor is a predictor of the future, the 2017 contest between Mayor John Cranley, Councilwoman Yvette Simpson and former University of Cincinnati board chairman Rob Richardson Jr. will not be a sleepy affair.

 

The nearly two-hour forum at South Avondale School sponsored by the AFL-CIO was not billed as a formal debate but it turned into one — a beefy back and forth between the three candidates over jobs, public transportation, poverty, labor and other issues. The AFL-CIO could issue an endorsement before the primary although officials with the group did not commit to doing so on Tuesday.

 

Simpson and Richardson unleashed a barrage of criticism at the incumbent mayor, whose birthday was Tuesday. Richardson dismissed the accomplishments Cranley touted, saying he has done little to actually change peoples’ lives, while Simpson repeatedly accused the mayor of using people and groups, including labor organizations, as pawns on his political chessboard.

 

Cranley said his long public record dwarfs those of his opponents and reflects superior values. He deployed his most-used political weapon, the streetcar, saying Richardson and Simpson will spend even more city money expanding it.

 

“My entire career is about building a record of accomplishments,” he said.

 

More below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/03/01/first-debate-signals-a-lively-cincinnati-mayor-s.html

2001 Cincinnati riots take the stage in 2017 mayor’s race

 

One of the pivotal events in Cincinnati’s recent history and Mayor John Cranley’s role in it continue to roil the city’s mayor’s race.

 

Cranley called Wednesday to rebut the idea that the City Council committee meeting he presided over on April 9, 2001, was immediately followed by race riots. Cranley said Councilwoman Yvette Simpson, one of his opponents in the 2017 mayoral race, mischaracterized the events of that day and the meeting’s role in them.

 

At Monday’s first mayoral debate, in response to a question about race relations, Cranley had said he would work to update the 2003 collaborative agreement between the community, the city and police – which he worked on at the time – that came after 2001’s civil unrest. The agreement required extensive police reforms and community participation to improve relationships.

 

In her response, Simpson brought up the Law and Public Safety Committee meeting chaired by then-Councilman Cranley.

 

“We all have a memory of what our city was like in 2001,” Simpson said. “Our incumbent mayor was the chair of (council’s) law and public safety (committee) when the riots (started), was chairing that meeting, was arrogant, did not listen to the plight of individuals who were there, adjourned the meeting, and people left and started marching in our streets and turning things over.

 

“That’s what happens when you don’t listen to the needs of the community."

 

Full article below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/03/02/2001-cincinnati-riots-take-the-stage-in-2017-mayor.html

^-Everything Qualls should have attacked that little POS for.  Go Yvette!

Enquirer making front page news out of the fact that Yvette Simpson was booed at Bockfest for shaming a Sausage Queen competitor:

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/06/yvette-simpson-booed-bockfest-dont-believe-we-should-get-naked/98800294/

Not clicking on the Enquirer article, but I was in the room when that happened and it was very odd. The annual Sausage Queen competition is a very risqué event and I would have expected all of the judges to be aware of that fact. This is not the first year that a contestant has done a burlesque routine. Of course the other mayoral candidates avoided the controversy by skipping out on Bockfest altogether. (Cranely would have been booed just by being in the parade or stepping foot in Bockfest Hall.)

To the extent she's already looking to compete with Cranley in the general election, this probably helps endear her to Cranley's (more conservative) supporters. Obviously, we still have the primary, but I don't see how Richardson could use this against Yvette without offending a much larger group of socially conservative voters.

Yeah maybe this was all a publicity stunt by Simpson.  Who knows.  I was outside and missed all of this excitement. 

Seems like a very odd thing for her to do if she's supposed to be the champion of the urban core...

 

Maybe making an appeal to socially conservative african american voters?  She already knows she has the urban core, she has to convince the AA vote who was taken by Cranley in the last election.  People forget that much of the AA community is socially conservative...

^Also I suspect that Cranley's minions have been spreading all sorts of misinformation -- in particular how Yvette is supposedly conspiring to move halfway houses and other social services from Over-the-Rhine to Avondale. 

Not surprised on that.  Its also pretty consistent with her DIRECTLY addressing the riots even if its years later. (Again something Qualls should have done first thing in her race).

Cranley fights dirty, all the time.  He can't win a fair fight.  I don't think Qualls had it in her to get aggressive. 

 

There is little overlap in Cincinnati between the white and black political worlds.  Different media sources, different rumor mills.  It says a lot that Cranley has managed to get a half dozen black people to go around bad-mouthing Simpson and Richardson.  One of Orwell's lesser-known books, Burmese Days, is all about this phenomenon.  Cranley's in there, so is Smitherman. 

As police union endorses him, Cranley blasts Simpson for streetcar, past support of layoffs

 

 

Mayor John Cranley received the coveted endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police Local No. 69 on Monday, the latest union endorsement received by the mayor on a day when one of his opponents, Councilwoman Yvette Simpson, released a poll showing them tied in the May 2 primary.

 

Cranley used the endorsement to call for an update of the collaborative agreement reached between the city, the police and the community after the 2001 riots. The agreement was the subject of a political skirmish between Cranley and Simpson last week.

 

The mayor and FOP President Daniel Hils also criticized Simpson for her backing of the Cincinnati streetcar, which long has been a target of the city’s public safety workers, who felt they were competing against it for resources. Simpson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The third candidate in the “Simprimary" is Rob Richardson, a labor leader and former chairman of the University of Cincinnati board.

 

Cranley, in a message he tested in a poll earlier this year, framed Simpson’s priorities this way: She voted to hire John Deatrick as project executive for the Cincinnati streetcar at a salary of $185,000 per year, allowed him to continue collecting a city pension but voted against increasing the salary of the police chief to $160,000 so Eliot Isaac would take the job.

 

“If that doesn’t tell you where her values are, I don’t know what will,” Cranley said.

 

Full article below:

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/03/06/s-police-union-endorses-him-cranley-blasts.html

'Revive Cincinnati subway,' mayoral candidate says

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/08/revive-cincinnati-subway-mayoral-candidate-says/98874356/

 

Mayoral candidate Rob Richardson Jr. has added four intriguing words to his campaign website: "Revive Cincinnati's subway system."

 

Forward-thinking? Pandering? Unrealistic? Maybe all of the above. Regardless, the progressive Democrat wants to jump start the conversation about what – if any – role Cincinnati's unfinished and abandoned subway system could play in improving one of the nation's worst public transportation systems for connecting people to jobs.

The Enquirer is getting all over Simpson for this:

 

PX: Yvette Simpson dropped ball on 'pale male' comment

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics-extra/2017/03/24/politics-extra-simpson-dropped-ball-pale-male-comment/99515364/

 

Critics and supporters of Cincinnati mayoral candidate Yvette Simpson for weeks have been quietly questioning her campaign strategy.

 

The campaign appears to be bumbling, and it showed this week in how she handled "campaign volunteer" Jessica Byrd's racially charged social media post about Mayor John Cranley. Simpson has refused to disavow the African-American volunteer's "stale pale male" Facebook comment about the white mayor.

 

Heck, Simpson refused to answer any questions about the comment.

 

“The candidate really has the option of either running from it or owning it," said David Niven, political science professor at the University of Cincinnati. "It’s a public campaign, and people are weighing who you are and what you stand for. You can’t take a middle ground on something like this, but she took the (stance) that can’t possibly do her any good – let’s pretend this didn’t happen.”

 

The Enquirer is getting all over Simpson for this:

 

PX: Yvette Simpson dropped ball on 'pale male' comment

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics-extra/2017/03/24/politics-extra-simpson-dropped-ball-pale-male-comment/99515364/

 

 

 

If Forbes uses it in a headline in an unironic manner, it is not a slur. Cranley is only playing up to the 'stay off my grass' contingent if his team is behind pushing this further. too bad they vote in higher numbers than the rest because it is not going to win any younger voters. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2013/09/19/boards-remain-pale-male-and-stale-old-boys-club-alive-and-well/#51966b735c47

 

Stale pale male "issue" out of the headlines thanks(?) to the nightclub shooting. 

Stale pale male "issue" out of the headlines thanks(?) to the nightclub shooting. 

 

After cruising on reddit I'm geniunely concerned about Yvette.  She's doing too many weird things and may put off people that would otherwise consider voting for her.  I'm also concerned that Richardson running will spoil her chances of even getting in at this rate.  She has a long uphill battle.  I'm getting a bad feeling you guys are going to have 4 more years of Cranley :/

The real problem with 4 more years of Cranley is that it leads directly to 4 or 8 years of Smitherman.  About 7-8 years ago the Republican blue bloods who funded the fake democrat Luken dynasty saw Smitherman as the next mayor after Cranley.  They got him and Cunningham to be buddies.  Cunningham is of course a former organized labor attorney and registered Democrat.  So they have a fake Republican at 700 WLW promoting fake Democrats like Cranley and the fake independent Chris Smitherman. 

Are you sure Cunningham is a registered Democrat?

 

According to this link, he is a registered Republican:

 

https://voterrecords.com/voter/32433307/william-cunningham

 

^ I double checked that on the voter role spreadsheet I always keep handy and he has voted in every Republican primary dating back to 2000 (as far back as the digital file goes). I had always thought he was a Democrat putting on a show on the radio - that might date further back than 2000, though.

Are you sure Cunningham is a registered Democrat?

 

According to this link, he is a registered Republican:

 

https://voterrecords.com/voter/32433307/william-cunningham

 

 

He talks about his days as a Democrat (he ran for minor office as a Democrat once or twice in the 70s) in his autobiography.  It's like he's screaming at his hardcore Republican fans: I don't believe anything I say, I'm telling you this right here, but I know you don't read books, even this one I just signed for you at Joseph Beth to give to your brother-in-law for Christmas. 

 

jmecklenborg[/member] there are a lot of people who were Democrats back in the 60's and 70's who are now Republicans. Not unusual at all.

 

 

I have spoken with him in private on a couple of occasions. He is very much skews libertarian conservative. Not a religious right Glenn Beck type. Not a blowhard like Hannity (who I think believes what he says)

The Enquirer is getting all over Simpson for this:

 

PX: Yvette Simpson dropped ball on 'pale male' comment

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics-extra/2017/03/24/politics-extra-simpson-dropped-ball-pale-male-comment/99515364/

 

Critics and supporters of Cincinnati mayoral candidate Yvette Simpson for weeks have been quietly questioning her campaign strategy.

 

The campaign appears to be bumbling, and it showed this week in how she handled "campaign volunteer" Jessica Byrd's racially charged social media post about Mayor John Cranley. Simpson has refused to disavow the African-American volunteer's "stale pale male" Facebook comment about the white mayor.

 

Heck, Simpson refused to answer any questions about the comment.

 

“The candidate really has the option of either running from it or owning it," said David Niven, political science professor at the University of Cincinnati. "It’s a public campaign, and people are weighing who you are and what you stand for. You can’t take a middle ground on something like this, but she took the (stance) that can’t possibly do her any good – let’s pretend this didn’t happen.”

 

 

So what ... back in 2013, fake COAST commenters on a fake COAST blog were mocking my pale skin. Where's my article, Jason?

I have spoken with him in private on a couple of occasions. He is very much skews libertarian conservative. Not a religious right Glenn Beck type. Not a blowhard like Hannity (who I think believes what he says)

 

He has earned tens of millions of dollars as the local Republican party's propagandist.  He's a lawyer -- he argues the position of whoever is paying him.