Buckeye State Blog - OH- Sen.: Stu Rothenberg: "Don't count Brunner out yet. Republicans expect Brunner to be nominee" - Comments

Poor, Nick

modernesquire — Mon, 18 May 2009 18:28:30 -0700

Here we go with the "rabid wolf" whine.

Nick, all I did was resign in protest and quietly advised you and David as to what I thought should be done in response to your revealed hackery, a hackery that would not likely have been revealed but for my resignation in protest. That's it.

You can't start a credibility war about this primary, Nick, and expect people NOT to mention what a completely unethical blogger you are. There was a time you claimed you did it out of friendship to a person in a campaign. Now, you admit what I claimed at the time, you did it because you support Fisher. The fact that three months later, you continue to unravel your story keeps it out there.

The reason the commenters here and the rest on the blogsphere came down on you was genuine shock and offense to what you did. I didn't lift a finger to get people to declare what you did was mind-blowing stupid and thus, revealed your lack of credibility as a blogger.

Yet again, we see the shifting rationales of Nick D. A few days ago, you declared it was your intention to "goad" me into anger. Today, you're whining about the wolferine. "Poor Modern is picking on me after I picked a fight with him."

This act of "woe is Nick" is tired. You want to know why people aren't willing to forget about what you did, Nick. One, YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP! And two, you've done absolutely nothing, nothing, to repair your credibility. Instead, you go to your blog and embrace your hackness proudly. You want me to lay off you? Fine, here's what you do: First, stop picking fights with people you aren't prepared to finish. Second, recognize that your credibility is in the toilet and that you're starting out in the hole, not just from scratch and reearn people's trust. Simply put, if you are tired of people calling you an unprinicipled hack, then stop being an unprincipled hack! And then maybe people like me can trust what you write again.

You complain about some "rabid wolf routine" when all that happened was you were forced to go from this blog to your own. That hardly makes you persecuted, Nick. I wish I had your problems, if that's the worst thing that ever happened to you. Quit blaming me for your problems, kid, and own them.

ad hominem

Nick D — Mon, 18 May 2009 17:46:43 -0700

The only reason you're doing is this is to make yourself seem relevant.

Wrong. The only reason I'm doing this is to stop your ad hominem attacks against me, Modern. I bet you'd object if you someone did the rabid wolf routine on you, too.

Nick, see dictionary

modernesquire — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:53:23 -0700

You don't think currying favor with a Lt. Governor/Senatorial candidate who is favored by ODP while you hold a position that relies on ODP for funding isn't selling out?

God, at least when I thought you sold out three months ago, I could understand it, so if it wasn't to curry favor with Fisher's campaign, exactly why you did what you did? Because your answer now is apparently differently than what you said at the time.

Nick, we'd all love to move on from what you did three months ago, but you seem to keep bringing it up. And by the way, you did more than just give them too much control over the circumstances of the interview. You would have edited that interview to suit their wishes, if you knew how. You actually apologized, in writing, to the campaign for one of your questions but said you had to appear credible and objective.

Giving the Fisher campaign veto power over posting the interview was just the tip of the iceberg.

Nick, pleeeeeasssseee

modernesquire — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:46:36 -0700

BNN is considered widely as a joke. Nobody knows their methodology and their rankings are highly debated. In fact, the only people who treat Bnn credible is obscure bloggers BNN rates as "influential." I find it funny that you know about BNN but have never heard of Stu Rothenberg?

Wow, Nick, your blog has as much "authority" as a blog that was closed for two years, reopened for two months, and then closed again? That's really... NOT... impressive at all. In fact, it's sad to hear you boast lke this.

And, again, no, I'm not a hack or in the tank for Brunner. Because one, I freely admitted any bias from the get-go. Second, as I apparently have to remind you for a second consecutive week, I was publicly critical of the Brunner campaign on the Apportionment Board issue and said she needed to address it before she could be taken seriously as a candidate. Since we all wrote for the same blog at the time, you really should know that. I am willing to give a critical eye to the race while putting my bias upfront so the reader knows of it at the time.

Nick, nobody believes you. You've been caught lying time and time again even when it was so bloddy apparent to everyone else that you were lying. Nobody believes you're "holding your fire" in criticizing the Brunner campaign.

Frankly, if you don't care enough about these email to write about, then why should I or anyone else? The only reason you're doing is this is to make yourself seem relevant. It's obvious that you're just goading me to help your "impressive" traffic at a site I don't recall a single blog cross-referencing except to ridicule your ignorance.

I wrote a detailed post explaining why Brunner was the more progressive candidate and based on Fisher's weaknesses as a candidate, the stronger candidate to defeat Rob Portman.

You wrote a one sentence post saying that because you were forced out of BSB you're now supporting Fisher. Apples and oranges.

I'm flattered that you want to be the Fisher equivalent of me, but you simply don't have the chops for it, Nick.

All the best.

Oh, Nick...

ols — Mon, 18 May 2009 15:03:34 -0700

you're totally allowed to speak, and you can even speak unintelligently if you want to. I'm just suggesting you (a) pick your topics better and (b) don't bait people into reminding you what you did. You said you intentionally goaded Modern into his response, and what I'm saying is that was stupid because there's nothing you can say to justify what you did and when you throw around stuff that you know is going to re-raise this issue of why you left, you're essentially asking people to remind you of why what you did was unethical and stupid and in doing so they're (1) reminding everyone else who lived it and (2) informing anyone else who didn't know about it but is now plugged in here.

And I hate to tell you this, Nick, but things like this never actually go away. Clearly what you did doesn't reach Marc Dann levels, but you gotta ask yourself: Marc's been paying for his stupidity for a year (during which time he's squandered opportunities to regain respect), do you think it's forgotten yet? While I don't actually think you need to pay any more penance, this isn't going to be forgotten unless and until you rebuild your own credibility by acting like an adult and a journalist/blogger. None of your comments in this thread are going to help you with that. You sound like a petulant child, and not even the most intelligent one of those. Your response to Modern was, "nah nah, I got you to get mad" followed by a "wait, I'm still relevant because all these other technology devices tell me so" and then we have "they didn't give me anything of value in exchange for being unethical, so it shouldn't count" and a "why is everyone still picking on me, it's not fair!" I'm not going to address anymore of these whiny comments other than to say re-read Schmennis' comment above. It doesn't matter if you received something of monetary value, it's clear from your e-mail correspondence with the Fisher campaign that you were trying to get in good. And that's understandable - everyone wants to be liked and everyone wants friends - but it's not ethical. And it's the ethical part that's the most important when you're doing something like blogging. That's what you want in the long-term: to be respected, which only comes if you're being ethical.

Nick, if you want respect after this event, you have to earn it. You don't just get it back because you said you're sorry. You get it back by doing things better than anyone else's standard. You get it back by never repeating that mistake and by not reliving it every chance you get. That's what's so crazy about this whole thing, Nick - you HAD to know what Modern would say and yet you still went to where you can't defend yourself. It was essentially a proclamation of: "hey, here's my past, I might tell you I'm sorry but I'm not ashamed of it." And that's not gonna get you the respect you want.

Growing up, my dad, who works in job that could get him on the front page of the Plain Dealer if he screws up, used to promise us that he'd never do anything that would get him on that front page for anything that wasn't honourable. He never wanted us to be ashamed of the actions he took in his job and as a result he has over 20 years of service and is one of the most respected men in his field nationally. His promise is one that my siblings and I live by with one another as well, and at least 2/3 of us also have this quote from Admiral Stockdale on our bedroom or office walls: ""Do the right thing, even if it means dying like a dog with no one you hold in esteem ever knowing you did it." They're good words to live by, and while my siblings and I inevitably make stupid - STUPID! - mistakes, they tend not to be mistakes of the ethical/legal variety (more of the, I shouldn't have told that guy my real number kind).

Go back to the basics, Nick. Go and be better than anyone could ask you to be in the way in which you conduct yourself and your blog. Don't do it to get better traffic or 'kudos' from Google Analytics - do it because that's the kind of person you should want to be. And when you come here and comment, don't raise the issues of the past, and don't try to pat yourself on the back. Just comment - comment intelligently and honestly on the issue at hand. Don't go after people who post here - don't try to make personal attacks because it's always going to result in re-discussing your past. You have to accept that - it sucks for you, but you have to undersatnd that that's how it's going to be until you have lived long enough in the right kind of way that that event becomes just an outlyer of who you are in the blogging field. If you do that, in 3 months time you won't get the same kind of responses as you got this time. You will have earned a little more respect.

And then, Nick, we'll let you eat at the big people's table and you can have all the opinions you want! (that last part was said with affectionate chiding, not a slam; just so you know the tone.)

Brunner is the best bet!

Schmennis — Mon, 18 May 2009 08:45:20 -0700

I totally disagree because I think this candidate that deserves to win is the candidate that has the best chance to win Jennifer Brunner.

Read any of my posts re: Brunner, I have been extremely critical of her actions as SOS, but for the most part they have been positive but she is the best candidate.

Brunner is both, the best candidate, able to win and deserving of a chance BECAUSE she is a woman.

Against Lee, she would STILL be the best candidate even if she were a man.

I am not excited about politicians playing musical chairs with offices in an attempt to JUST expand the democratic agenda, but Brunner is the best candidate not Lee Fisher.

Lee will be moping floors if he steps down from Lt. Gov. running against Portman. It is a Republican seat, (for now) and people won't vote to change that when democrats are allowing the Ohio economy to tank

....Especially for someone that is an ESTABLISHED LOSER against republicans. (Lee)

Brunner is the best bet!

simple

kJk — Mon, 18 May 2009 08:41:18 -0700

The only thing "simpl[e]" is that you committed ethical misconduct. Someone--perhaps multiple people, I don't specifically recall--invited you to announce up-front that you supported Fisher. You declined. Why? It would have saved you an awful lot of grief in the long-term. One ought to refrain from thinking about things in the short-term, unless it's a matter of physical, mental, or financial survival. I don't believe those circumstances confronted you when you implied impartiality.

I'm still undecided and don't see that changing anytime until at least early next year. But if you are the most vocal Fisher supporter I read, that's going to make the process of elimination simpler. Remember--you and everyone else--that there are several candidates, not just two.

Never "Sold Out"

Nick D — Mon, 18 May 2009 08:33:54 -0700

Schmennis,"sold out" would imply that I received something of value, or the promise of something of value, from the Fisher campaign.

I did not.

Go back and read my apology again. I simply allowed them to have too much control over the circumstances of the interview.

totally agree

mbrickner — Mon, 18 May 2009 08:26:40 -0700

Let's not talk about who has the best shot of winning, but who deserves to win because of their leadership potential and their positions on the important isues. If we continue to frame the debate on who CAN win, I'm afraid we're going to be perpetually stuck with "safe," mediocre candidates. I'm much more interested on who SHOULD win.

Tell me why....I think BSB said it best

Schmennis — Mon, 18 May 2009 07:56:56 -0700

"aren't you a hack for supporting Brunner?"

Modern didn't sell-out his blog content to a political candidate.

His content comes from his brain, not the brain of campaign staff through his keyboard.

You are destroying Lee Fisher's campaign with every post.

If you hoped to get any political favor from the Lee Fisher campaign it has been LOST.

Why? BSB wants it that way, I guess

"In the tank"

Schmennis — Mon, 18 May 2009 07:41:17 -0700

Which of the two, Modern or Tim Russo ever "sold out" their blog for political favor?

Neither of them are what I would classify as "lap dogs" for ANY candidate.

As a matter of fact Tim has been known to "bite" the hand that feeds him (so to speak) so how could he be accused of being "in the tank" for anyone?

And being penitent isn't what anyone expects, support your candidate and be prepared to defend them from any and all criticism. Don't turn over your content because you want an appointment, a paycheck or a ****job from an elected official.

These characters on here are sharp and they will focus in on you like a laser to cut out any of your cancerous, festering, stinky, gangrene "reach around" content.

Again I Ask

Nick D — Mon, 18 May 2009 07:26:42 -0700

Okay OLS, I'll ask again, how much of a penance am I supposed to do over this? It's been nearly three months. Am I allowed to speak again?

Nobody Reads My Blog?

Nick D — Mon, 18 May 2009 07:19:00 -0700

Then why do you care what I write there, Modern? This is the same question you asked Russo during the Clinton v. Obama primary when he insisted your opinion "didn't matter."

And, if that's the case that nobody reads my blog, you'd better write the folks that make Google Analytics and tell them their product doesn't work right, because its does show traffic at my blog.

You'd also better write Lisa Renee Ward and tell her that BlogNetNews' influence rankings are messed up, because right now Blue Ohio ranks #17 and has ranked as high as #2.

You'd also better write Technorati, because Blue Ohio has the same Technorati authority as your old blog (modern-esquire.blogspot.com) does.

And again, I ask, if I'm a hack for supporting Fisher, aren't you a hack for supporting Brunner? You also wrote a lengthy post detailing your support for her.

And I do have e-mails Modern. There's lots of Ohio Democrats not happy with Jennifer Brunner at the moment, and I'm getting story ideas. I'll be sure to let you know when I publish them.

"All the Best"

Thanks for Admitting...

Nick D — Mon, 18 May 2009 07:07:00 -0700

...that Modern and Russo are not objective when it comes to this race. That makes them "in the tank", doesn't it?

And, KJK, what happened three months ago has been admitted. How much of a pennance would you like me to do? Obviously, I'm not going to stop writing about this primary because it's important to me. If you think I'm just going to go away, you're mistaken.

Finally, KJK, I try not to watch or read any of CNN's content. I tend to think they have a conservative bias.

You wanted to be reminded of the stupidity of your actions?

ols — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:40:13 -0700

So, Nick, you 'set off' Modern's 'temper for fun' because you knew he would write a 'legal brief length response' reminding everyone here how you sold out BSB and the work of Ohio's political bloggers for the most minor of thanks from the Fisher campaign? Nick, your lapdog routine with the Fisher campaign in that instance reminds me of an old joke: Guy asks a woman if she'd have sex with him for $1,000,000 and the woman says, "Yeah, I'd do you for a million." So the guy says, what about $100? She smacks him and says, "$100? What kind of a woman do you think I am?" He replies, "Well, we've already established what kind of a woman you are; now, we're just haggling over price." Nick, were you the woman then, your response apparently would've been, "$100? Sure - thanks SO much for offering me more than $10." Which is why I find it fascinating that you're talking having 'taunted' Modern into this. You wanted everyone to remember how you have virtually no credibility, no independence and no integrity, but you wanted to see it in the length of a legal brief? Because if I had sold out any sense of integrity for a political handjob (you didn't even get the better options), I might not come on here and taunt people into reminding everyone of that.

As for the Brunner v Fisher debate, I'm pretty sure Jennifer has nothing to apologize or answer for in her declaration of running. She gave the party plenty of time to find a replacement - why should she be expected to take a backseat to Lee's political aspirations? He's an older guy who has lost multiple state-wide offices and despite having been in Ohio politics for decades (apparently almost as long as you've been alive, Nick) still doesn't have a wide base of support and while he has accomplishments, nothing recent of great significance; she's a young, fresh face who transformed the SOS office in a matter of 2 years from one of the greatest jokes to one of the most functioning and fair electoral offices in the country, and has a wide base of support across the state. Besides his 'seniority' and his position as LtG , and the fact he's a white man (which, as Subodh might testify, apparently carries more weight in the ODP than it does in the ORP), tell me what makes him a better candidate than her? Oh, and one of those isn't even a reason.

I actually really like Lee as a person and politician, but most voters like Lee like I like Joe Biden - as the number 2, not the number 1. No one votes for the LtGov because even though they're second in line to the 'throne', everyone assumes the Gov will control for the term. So they make sure the LtG is not a complete idiot, but he's the guy you could've voted for as #1 but never did and never would've, but you're kind of comfortable having them as a back-up in case the real candidate dies in office. If people had wanted Lee as the #1, they wou've voted for him over Bob Taft. I mean, seriously... Taft. I've had belly button lint with more intelligence and personality. But that's who Lee lost to when it came to putting him solely in a top spot.

So, it's not about who he's going to reach. This is about the fact that he's old, he's waited a while and he has more rich people donating to them (and maxing out their contributions early). It's interesting since this was the position of Hillary at the time you started supporting Barack. 'm not going to address the obvious gender issues that may explain your hypocrisy and I'll just assume it instead relates to your lack of credibility or moral compass. Wait maybe it's not moral compass issues but intellectual honesty? Hmm... oh the debate I could have w/ myself over this.

So, Nick, offer up something else if you really believe in Lee. If you're not going to offer substance to this debate, go back to your own blog and let the grown-ups have this discussion (and yes, despite the prostitution joke and the handjob comment, I've still evidenced a great capacity for this discussion than you have... sad for you, really).

OH- Sen.: Stu Rothenberg: "Don't count Brunner out yet. Republicans expect Brunner to be nominee"

modernesquire — Fri, 15 May 2009 12:46:22 -0700

Apparently publicly-declared "in the tank for Fisher" blogger Nick D is upset that I don't always comment on what D.C. Beltway pundits say about the race (when in reality, the whole point of being a blogger is to challenge conventional wisdom, not echo it.) My other reason for not doing so is that the ones in particular (Cilliza and Silver)were only discussing the fundraising reports, they did nothing to take into consideration a sense of public opinion and what's actually occurring on the ground in Ohio. There is one D.C. beltway pundit who does get his hands so dirty as to actually get a first-hand sense of the field on the ground before opinionating. It's Stuart Rothenberg. And here's what Rothenberg wrote in reaction to Fisher's campaign finance haul earlier this month (that Nick D. apparently didn't feel compelled to comment on, either.)

Unlike Fisher, she has never lost an election. In 1994 (a horrendous year for Democrats), Fisher lost his bid for re-election as the state’s attorney general, and four years later, he lost an open-seat gubernatorial race to Bob Taft (R). (Modern notes: 1996, Ohio went for Clinton only to have Fisher lose two years later. In 2008, Ohio went for Obama ...)

Surprisingly, given the lieutenant governor’s more frequent races and more extensive government service, Fisher and Brunner start off as virtually even in Quinnipiac University polling, both in the ballot test and in personal ratings. But Fisher held a substantial financial advantage at the end of the first quarter.

Brunner raised just $207,000 in the first quarter and ended March with $193,000 in the bank, while Fisher raised just over $1 million in the first three months of the year, ending March with $1 million on hand.

Still, I wouldn’t count Brunner out yet.

Ohio observers believe that Brunner has some national fundraising potential and will eventually earn the support of EMILY’s List, which is likely to help her raise considerable funds — at least enough to compete with Fisher. And those same observers believe that Brunner will be a more aggressive candidate than Fisher. In fact, most Republicans I spoke with expect her to be the Democratic nominee.

That's right. Even Republicans believe that Fisher will do what he ordinarily does: lose. And as Rothenberg points out, Brunner is going to be able to raise the monev, over time, necessary to be competitive. Nick D. was so quick to say that when I discussed the available on-line fundraising numbers that fundraising is a marathon, not a sprint. Funny how that went out the window once Fisher submitted his smoke-and-mirrors filled FEC report (which included tricks to inflate his cash-on-hand numbers like not paying the accounting firm that help you implement such accounting schemes.)

Roth is saying what I've been saying: That Fisher's fundraising advantage isn't moving the polls. That he has alot more work to do than Brunner to win given his track record, that Fisher's poll numbers are surprising given his "on paper" strengths as a candidate, and one FEC report isn't enough to crown Fisher the Democratic nominee. Fisher cannot take that much money from banks and utlities companies and then suggest that Portman is too friendly to business interests. That's why Brunner is expected to be a more aggressive candidate. She's the progressive candidate supported by progressive interests.

Even if Brunner does nothing more than continue to raise money at the rate she did in the first period, she'd raise over a million for the primary alone. That's enough to be competitive and win for her. Given his lackluster record at the Ohio Department of Development and track record statewide, Fisher's going to need a huge fundraising advantage to have even a fighting chance. In other words, he's running against the wind.

That's all I've said this week. You'd think by the reaction of Fisher's supporters that I hate Fisher (I don't. I volunteered extensively for his campaign in 1994 and 1998, praised his pick as Lt. Gov. in 2006, and think he's a decent guy), accused him of beating his children with fuzzy puppies, and pissed on his mother's grave at the funeral!

All I've said is that too much is being made of Fisher's fundraising, his poll numbers are problematic, and as a result, Brunner has a hole in which to exploit and become the nominee. Hardly "bitchy, insider gossip" stuff, sounds to me to be reasoned, analysis of the state of the race, especially when you consider that Stu Rothernberg is saying the EXACT SAME THING!