Dear Common Cause/Ohio: STFU. Signed, BSB
Submitted by modernesquire on Tue, 08/19/2008 - 5:21pm.
(Okay, I didn't clear this title with BSB admins, so they can feel free to dissent.)
Last week, Common Cause/Ohio wrote a letter to the REPUBLICAN leadership of the General Assembly asking that both houses pass a resolution denouncing the standard of impeachment set forth by the House Democratic caucus' impeachment resolution against Dann. (According to all published reports, no such letter went to the House Democratic caucus-- the group that actually introduced the articles of impeachment.) Apparently, the Board is even more upset that nobody in the media really paid any attention to their press release last week, so for some reason the AP's Statehouse bureau has decided today to report on it after all this time:
The government watchdog group Common Cause urged lawmakers in a letter last week to pass a resolution rejecting the standards for impeachment established in the Dann case.
They argued that such acts as "neglect of duty" or "failure to exercise due care" are far too vague and amorphous to serve as standards for removing a statewide elected official from office.
After all, Common Cause governing board chairman William K. Woods argued, legislators didn't impeach former Gov. Bob Taft after four misdemeanor convictions - suggesting that an official's conduct needed to be worse than that to qualify.
Impeaching Dann would have required a Senate trial on each of the charges leveled against him, as well as Republican support. Ohio hasn't impeached and convicted anyone since 1808.
"The removal (of Dann) appeared to be carried out in a rash and reckless manner containing little concern about the rights of over 2 million Ohioans who voted for Dann, the requirements of the laws, and basic principles of fairness," William K. Woods, chairman of the Common Cause governing board, wrote. "Instead, the process was apparently driven by strong concerns about the condition of one political party's 'house.'"
Here's what is so mind-numbingly stupid about Common Cause. First, no standard of impeachment was established in the Dann case. In order for a standard to have been made, the House would have first needed to actually PASS an impeachment resolution. Does the General Assembly now have to affirmatively pass resolutions denouncing every other piece of legislation it doesn't enact in order to avoid "confusion" that their silence might be taken as acceptance?
Apparently, Common Cause/Ohio thinks so. Idiots.
Second, why should the State Senate pass a resolution about the standard of impeachment? Constitutionally, the standard of impeachment is an issue solely for the House to decide in interpreting its responsibilities under the Ohio Constitution. It would be an infringement of the House's constitutionally delegated powers for the Senate to take a position as to the proper standard for impeachment under the Ohio Constitution. For a public interest group that is supposedly so worried about the Ohio Constitution, you'd think they would have realized this.
Third, the General Assembly didn't "remove" Dann from office! Something that never happened cannot be carried out in a rash and reckless matter. Dann resigned. Maybe he resigned in a rash and reckless manner containing little concern about the rights of over 2 million Ohioans who voted for Dann. But after all, that would be consistent with how he ran his office during his short term.
Fourth, and I'm sick of repeating this-- the impeachment resolution did not use "removal standards that are inconsistent with the impeachment standard contained in the Ohio Constitution.” Again, we covered this: in this post and this post and well, countless others at the time.
Fifth, there's a difference between why Marc Dann had articles of impeachment introduced against him; and Bob Taft didn't. Impeachment is inherently a political, not legal act. Say that seven more times until you remember it. You say that the effort to impeach Dann was largely political? Duh. And guess what? If the Framers didn't want politics to play out into impeachment, then they wouldn't have given that power to one of the most political branches there is.
Sixth, yes, Dann's impeachment would terminate the mandate of the majority who elected him. But if that's an argument against impeachment, then can only appointed officials be removed from office?
Common Cause's nonsensical protest over poor, ol' Marc Dann doesn't stop there. No, they also criticize giving the IG the power to investigate Dann (originally presented as a delegation of the House's impeachment investigatory duties) and the "raid" against his office:
Woods also said the law giving Charles jurisdiction to investigate Dann happed quickly and created the appearance of a conflict of interest, because Charles is appointed by Gov. Ted Strickland, “who had publicly and repeatedly called for Dann to resign or be impeached.”
Additionally, Woods said the inspector general’s “raid” on Dann’s office hours before he resigned was done “in a manner that crippled Dann’s ability to continue to function as attorney general” because important electronics and property were seized. Woods wrote that sexual harassment complaints are often investigated without the need to raid offices and seize equipment.
Is Woods so out-of-touch with the facts of the Dann affair that he really thinks the only issue was the sexual harassment complaint?? What about Gutierrez conducting private business from state resources, his questionable purchases, Dann's questionable hiring practices, the FBI investigation about Dann and games of chance, and is there anything else I possible forgot? And since when do we blame law enforcement for seizing evidence in order to prevent the destruction of relevant evidence? Maybe if Marc Dann had treated the trust of those 2 million voters a little more seriously, I dunno, maybe such a raid for evidence wouldn't have been necessary?
I can't name one single positive policy achievement in Ohio that was the result of Common Cause/Ohio (thanks for those RON amendments, guys). If you go to their website, you'll see an exhibit of sporadic activity (and all of it mostly failures). You will see that they still have a "Guide to Coingate", and therein you see the real rub. Common Cause is hitched to Marc Dann over Coingate. The press that Dann was able to generate with that story gave Common Cause/Ohio a hook to fundraise over. And they're trying to defend an ol' political friend who was the only thing that had made this entity anything close to being politically relevant in this State by helping him play the "rush to judgment" victim card. Boo-hoo...
So Common Cause of Ohio owes Marc Dann and is now (well after the fact when it can do so without suffering too much political heat because Marc Dann is so backpage news) trying to repay it. Meanwhile, their national Board is supporting the impeachment of the President (how many millions voted for that guy-- twice). It also supported the impeachment of former AG Alberto Gonzales because of the partisan hiring practices of the AG's office. So apparently, Common Cause believes an Attorney General should be impeached for hiring someone based on whether they are a Republican, but it's ok if they make hiring decisions based on the applicant's "ass and tits" like Dann's office did.
Until Common Cause shows some common sense, don't give them your hard-earned dollars and cents.
Common Cause letter on Dann Removal
Submitted by Independent55 on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 5:51pm.
I have the following comments about the points in the above article. (1) Former Cleveland Plain Dealer legislative reporter Thomas Suddes knows a lot about how the legislature operates. He wrote in the Columbus Dispatch about the Democrats' impeachment resolution: "House Democrats' written accusations against Dann were so irresponsibly elastic they set a terrible precedent for when the shoe is on the other foot, as someday it will be." In other words, there are plenty of legislators in both parties who are stupid enough and lazy enough to treat the resolution as precedent. Thus, the best way to kill that terrible precedent would be a resolution from both the House and Senate denouncing it. (2)The Senate should weigh in on the Dems' impeachment standards because a trial in the Senate is where any impeachment attempt would be decided. The Senate ultimately decides the standards for impeachemnt. (3)It was the Dems who acted in a rash and reckless manner in forcing Dann out. If they hadn't passed their absurd impeachment resolution, and sent the inspector general into Dann's office like the Gestapo to ransack the place, Dann would still be there. (4)The Cleveland Plain Dealer was correct in editorializing that the Dems' articles of impeachment "would have been laughable" if they were not "so offensive to the Ohio Constitution." According to the Dems' resolution, impeachable offenses include such acts as failing to secure the safety of state property, failing to exercise due care in the administration of the office, and failing to know that certain personal conduct undermined the effectiveness and efficiency of the office. The Dems consider those acts as impeachable offenses, but not acts such as lying to take the nation to war and causing the unnecessary deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of innocent people. Can any position be more absurd than that? (5)To apply a different impeachment standard to Dann than was applied to Taft violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions. Those clauses require government officials to apply the same standards to people who are in similar circumstances. But the Dems want to be able to decide willy-nilly if someone should be impeached. They apparently forget that this is supposed to be a government of laws. (Not to mention justice.) (5)The Ohio Supreme Court has said: "The survival of our system of government requires that proper respect be given to the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box." After all, the U.S. Constitution begins by saying the government was established by "We the Peopld." In rushing headlong to remove Dann, the Dems weren't showing respect for the will of the people. They were determined to overturn the people's choice for Attorney General regardless of the law and facts. (6) The above article conveniently ignores Common Cause's point that the inspector general is not an independent investigator of the matter. The inspector general reports to Strickland, who was already doing everything he could to remove Dann from office. This conflict of interest was present regardless of what the inspector general was investigating at Dann's office. Moreover, the inspector general has investigated plenty of similar allegations in state government. I'm unaware of any instance where he did so in the manner he used for Dann's office. But I know of a number of cases in which he did not use such tactics to investigate serious allegatons of wrongdoing. In regard to Dann, the inspector general was clearly using strong-arm methods calculated to achieve by force the result his boss, Strickland, wanted. That way, the inspector general would please the boss and increase the chances that Strickland would reappoint him to another term of office. Amazingly, Strickland had the audacity and hypocrisy to criticize the AG's internal investigation as lacking independence. (7) The ad hominem attacks on Common Cause are unworthy of a response. They wouldn't be needed except in an attempt to bolster arguments that are weak on substance.
C'mon Modern & Bonobo
Submitted by Nandia on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 6:28pm.
Get your supposed brilliant minds working on this reply. Or would that be too much work for your "effin" attack happy insanity to handle? Thanks for a great come back Independent55. These two can't compete with your thoughtful and intelligent reply.
Still waiting...
Submitted by modernesquire on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 10:12pm.
Yeah, so thoughtful and intelligent except that it's completely misinformed and untrue and has been completely debunked. Maybe you can name something Common Cause/Ohio has achieved?
Epic fail
Submitted by modernesquire on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 10:10pm.
First, learn to format. Your comment was impossible to read.
1) Tom Suddes is not infallable. He also advocated for Dann to be recalled through a judical removal process. Which has the exact same legal standard as impeachment.
2) Under the Constitution, the Senate decides if the impeached offenses are sufficient cause for removal from office or some other constitutionally provided punishment. They do not, as you incorrectly stated, set the standard for impeachment. The House impeaches; the Senate removes. The Senate, under the Constitution, is responsible for deciding if the grounds in which the House impeaches a public official is sufficient grounds to remove them from office.
3) The Democrats didn't pass anything. They introduced an impeachment resolution. The House passed legislation, introduced by the Republicans, to give the IG authority to investigate Dann. They were two separate pieces of legislation.
4) I don't know what the Ohio House Democratic caucus' position would be on impeaching Bush. Since they have no constitutional authority on the issue, it doesn't matter. You can't equate what the Ohio House Democratic Caucus does or doesn't do and compare it to what Democrats in Congress do and don't do. Competely different groups.
Maybe SOME of the articles shouldn't be grounds for impeachment. But to assume that the articles would have passed through the legislative process "as is" is naive. Perhaps, some of the counts the House Democrats leveled wouldn't have passed the full House. But that doesn't mean the entire resolution had no constitutional grounds.
The PD, again, said that Dann's offenses was grounds for Dann to be removed from Ohio's recall process. Despite the fact that the legal standard for removal is the same as impeachment. It's just a different process using different actors.
5(a) The equal protection clause has no bearing on Ohio's impeachment clause. Perhaps you should look up the Political Question Doctrine, and read my past posts on the issue. The U.S. Supreme Court made it pretty in U.S. v. Nixon that because the Constitution vests the power of impeachment in the legislative branch, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the Congress' use of its impeachment powers.
(b) Also, look up the term dicta. The Ohio Supreme Court did not say that in the context of Ohio's impeachment powers. BTW, the Ohio voters did not know, were not told, and could not have known what Dann did. Impeachment is an inherent recognition that a public official has breached the public trust given to him by the people's mandate. Impeachment of an elected official always means the removal of an official elected by the will of the people. If the Framers never intended for such officials to be impeached, then they would have limited the power of impeachment to appointed officials.
BTW, this is the same argument raised by supporters of convicted Jim Trafficant when the Congress expelled him. It didn't work then.
Your "retort" proves my point in the wisdom of vesting impeachment in the most politically sensitive branch-- The House of Representatives. As I said in an earlier post on the subject, if the House abuses it's powers, as voters felt in the instance of President Clinton's impeachment, the legislators know they'll pay a political price come the next election.
So far, I haven't seen any evidence that Governor Strickland and the ODP is paying a political price for removing Dann from office.
6) There was already an ample record that Dann's supporters were trying to influence testimony. Destruction of evidence wasn't that far out of thinking given the circumstances. Shall I remind you about the temporarily missing Blackberry?
Um, and by the way, the IG was already re-appointed by Strickland. He could only worry about re-appointment if Strickland wins re-election. And the IG has broad bipartisan support. If Strickland fired him for how he conducted his investigation, it would be a political nightmare for the Governor being accused of improperly influencing a critical investigation.
By the way, normally it's the Governor's offices that the IG is investigating in the first place. That's why they had to introduce legislation to expand his authority. So if people have no problem with inherent conflict of the IG in essentially investigating the Governor's Cabinet, well, you get the point.
7) Everything you wrote was patently untrue, and utterly rebutted. Perhaps you can't defend Common Cause, because like me, you can't name one thing they've achieved in Ohio in recent memory.
Thanks for playing, though. Maybe next time, I'll actually work up a sweat.
On further thought
Submitted by modernesquire on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 8:44am.
There were a few points in your comment I missed and need to refute before anyone else gets the wrong idea that you've thought this thing through. It's ironic that you would criticize the Democrats for trying to "upset the will of the people" by taking a very liberal interpretation of Ohio's constitutional standard for impeaching a public official by citing the Plain Dealer. Where, then, is Common Cause/Ohio's and your criticism of the Plain Dealer and other media outlets who publicly advocated to overturn the will of the people by demanding Dann to resign even though they supposedly believed he did nothing that would permit the constitutional removal from his office?
While impeachment does have a broad standard, it nonetheless does have limits. But calls for resignation is a social construct with no standard whatsoever. How can you criticize the Democrats for trying to impeach Dann under the constitutional standard of impeachment, but be completely utterly silent in criticizing the Plain Dealer for advocating for the self-removal of an elected official put into office by the people when that same paper believes he's done nothing wrong to warrant his impeachment?
Now, the PD, tried to "thread the needle" on this by suggesting that they would support his recall instead, except that the recall standard, at a minimum, has the same legal standard as impeachment, or worse, an even more strigent standard.
Third, it is shocking and disappointing to see Common Cause/Ohio and now you unfairly attack the integrity of the Inspector General with absolutely no evidence to support your claims that he acted in a heavy-handed manner due to some perceived "pressure" from the Governor. This would be the same IG, by the way, who had absolutely no qualms about referring the last Governor for criminal charges. And was re-appointed by Strickland for his independence. Something good government groups like Common Cause/Ohio applauded Strickland for doing at the time. Now, after getting the last Governor convicted for crimes in office, the IG suddenly becomes a spineless jelly fish over the Dann matter? Really?!? That's your argument?
Your supposed basis for this otherwise baseless accusation is that the IG never conducted such raids in prior investigations. I'm presuming you're referring to the investigation into Taft and Coingate. You're right in that the IG's office did no such raid in those investigations, but you and Common Cause/Ohio conveniently ignore the reason why: no such raid was necessary. Why? Well, the Governor's ethics disclosure convictions were easy once the Governor tried to amend his disclosure reports after the fact. Those amended reportes essentially served as the Governor's confession, making further investgation unnecessary.
Oh, and what compelled the Governor to try to amend the reports? The IG had received information from federal authorities that Noe had picked up the Governor's tab on golf outings. How did the Feds get this information? When they conducted raids on Tom Noe's house and business. The IG didn't conduct any raids because the feds had already gotten the evidence when it conducted its own raid!
Governor Strickland, rightfully so, questioned the appropriateness of Marc Dann having his own employees (who worked at his will with no civil service protection) conduct an investigation that implicated him. Anyone who read Ben Espy's questioning of Marc Dann, and the fact that the investigation went out of its way to avoid ooking into whether Dann's affair with a subordinate, which was known by the other offenders, had any role in creating the hostile work environment, suggests such criticism was warranted.
The "ad hominem" attacks (which, are not really "ad hominem attacks") are worthy of the discussion, because they suggest the financial and political motive of Common Cause/Ohio to take this action and calls their credibility into doubt. It goes towards their bias and your complete inability to counter it suggest you yourself cannot defend the obvious bias and selfish financial and political motives which is motivating Common Cause/Ohio to make such ridiculous arguments.
I'm not modern or bonobo, but I can't help and reply...
Submitted by ols on Wed, 08/20/2008 - 9:20pm.
(1) The Equal Protection Clause? Seriously? That's what you're citing? Do you really want to do that? Do you understand what it says? You know, I'm going to stop there and assume the answers to those questions were yes, yes, yes, no, and no, and I'm going to give you a do-over or a pass on that one and not address it.
(2) The Senate has no place addressing issues that rest solely in the power of the House. Yes, they get to do the trial, but that doesn't change the fact that the standard for impeachment is the sole provision of the House. The Senate can apply a different standard to the trial if they want, but they don't get to tell the House what to do with their role in the matter.
(3) You do get that this would be non-binding right? I mean, even if they *say* it's binding, it would actually take an Amendment to the Ohio Constitution to make it binding. Why, you may ask? See (2) above. The current House cannot dictate the standards employed by the future Houses in any impeachment proceedings without an Amendment to the document that actually governs impeachment. It might be persuasive to some and it might set a type of "precedent" but it's not a binding one.
(4) This wasn't a minor infraction by Dann and the Democrats, who ran on ethics and substance, have every right to say that when someone crosses an ethical line they are no longer fit to be in public office. That's a standard that can be - even if it isn't often - employed in impeachment proceedings in the U.S. Congress as well.
(5) There wasn't even a *vote* on the impeachment articles. Why renounce something you haven't clearly endorsed in the first place? Why try to set a "precedent" - since one hasn't actually been set yet - when you don't have the facts or foresight to understand how it would be employed in the future? That's just silly (and short-sighted and ill-advised and a lot of other long, hyphenated words that can just be boiled down to "silly").
(6) The Will of the People was manifested in the 2006 elections: a rejection of the corrupt and unethical practices of the unchecked Republican office-holders. The Democratic position on Dann was in line with this.
(7) The impeachment articles did not usurp the will of the people because (a) Dann resigned and (b) the will of the people doesn't operate in the vacuum separate and apart from the standards of society or from the standards employed by the House or Senate in their Constitutional responsibilities. We expect - and *should* expect - our elected officials to police their own during non-election years. Otherwise, they could run roughshod over the rules for 3 out of every 4-6 years and that's much more dangerous to the Will of the People.
(8) These were serious allegations being investigated by the inspector general. According to reliable sources (more reliable than those relied upon by the P.D. in prematurely pronouncing the Congresswoman's death today), there was a lot more to the IG's inspection than simply who was doing who in Dann's office.
(9) Can you make an ad hominem attack on an organization? Hmmm.. Attack against the man (person)... Would you need to pluralize hominem if you're using it against an organization or is that employing a British rule of grammar on a Latin phrase used in the U.S. and therefore inappropriate? Personally, I find this the most interesting of the questions / issues poised by Independent55 in his comment...
2 wind bags wrote a lot, communicated little
Submitted by Nandia on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 9:43am.
Can ols and modernesquire PLEASE write in a more concise version of the ENGLISH language, so at least a majority of the general public would be able to stay awake long enough to read their posts?
Do you honestly believe that more words are better even if they never come close to communicating the message that you are failing to get across? My gosh, even though Independent55 didn't format properly, he/she at least was able to communicate a complex subject in a clear and concise manner.
Go back and take English 101, please!
Waa! Waa!
Submitted by modernesquire on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 10:37am.
IS that better? You know for someone who whined about ad hominem attacks (is a Latin phrase too over your head), you sure to be quick on the draw.
If you go back and read your buddy's posts, you'd realize it was as long as my rebutal. I just did the courtesy of properly formatting it so it was easier on the eyes and for the reader.
According to the software I use, my comments are written at a level that can be comprehended by the average 9th grader. Sorry to hear that's not clear and concise enough for you.
Maybe next time, instead of insulting the writer, you can can respond to the substance? What was that about the ad hominem attack being the refuge of a weak argument? Hypocrite.
This is a blog, not a law review or scholarly journal
Submitted by Nandia on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 10:15am.
modernesquire always tries to make this blog into a scholarly journal or a law review. Few if any non-attorney or non-academia readers give a crap about plowing through the convolutions of modernesquire's written mumbo jumbo maze.
I thought ols was not supposed to blog anymore. I guess he has decided to go against the wishes of his new employer (ambulance chasing law firm).
Some people...
Submitted by kJk on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 10:34am.
Some people say cucumbers taste better pickled.
i think you have me confused
Submitted by ols on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 12:55pm.
with someone else. I'm not a him and I don't (a) have a new employer or (b) work for an ambulance chasing law firm... but thanks for playing. essentially, what you just said was "i don't understand modern because he's too smart and i don't want to argue with her." I'm not sure why you don't want to argue with me, but for my own ego's sake, I'm gonna think it's because I'm too smart, too... thanks.
Make up your mind!
Submitted by modernesquire on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 2:26pm.
First you whine about my post being too juvenile, now you're complaining about it being too high-brow. Make up your mind!
I'm sorry you lack basic reading comprehension skills, but my points are pretty easy to understand. So much so that you and your friend "independent" have been completely unable to attack them on your substance.
You goaded me into responding to "Independent"'s misinformed and misleading comment. Now, you're screaming for mercy.
I'm sorry that a comment that had a delinated (that means numbered) format outlining my points is too much of a "maze" for you. Mumbo jumbo like the constitution, precedent, and separation of powers are concepts taught in any jr. high civics class. (And are terms your friend inartfully used in a comment that you called "insightful" and "intelligent.")
I'm sorry that you can't handle the fact that I completely pwned Indepedent to the point that neither you or he could respond on the substance. But I miss where my comment using the very same terms went from "intelligent" and "insightful" to "mumbo jumbo". I used the exact same terminology that Independent did. Now, do explain how you understood those terms when Independent used them, but was struck with utter illiteracy when I did.
BTW, maybe you should read a scholarly journal or a law review article sometime. Maybe then you'd realize what utter nonsense your criticism sounds.
Also, you're thinking of Jerid, who did NOT go to work for a personal injury law firm. OLS is also a womyn. Strike three.
You're a hypocrite. You attacked my post for using ad hominem attacks (when it didn't), and yet you've been actually using that tactic exclusively after you invited me to respond to your friend's comment. You applauded one comment solely because it expressed a side of an argument you agree with as "intelligent" and "insightful" and yet protest when I used those very terms and explained how Mr. Intelligent was off the reservation factually and legally.
I'm still waiting for you to name one thing Common Cause/Ohio has successfully achieved in this State. It's been all week, surely your brain can fire enough neurons to answer a simple question.
You'd a thunk we were in court
Submitted by Nandia on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 4:14pm.
This is a blog, not a court of law. Your communication skills suck. So, your shotgun approaches of long and drawn out attacks on everything about my posts are ridiculous (even things I never did or said). You can think you won if you want just because you out blabbed me. Whatever turns you on. But, I'd trust the folks at Common Cause Ohio long before I'd trust a single word coming from your twisted sense of partisan right and wrong.
Is Redfern supposed to be a role model for you and I? I think not. I'll take Congressman Kucinich as my Ohio role model. You can have Redfern
"Court says Ohio Democrat chief broke election law in 2006"
http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/08/22/dembreak.html?sid=101
Poor baby
Submitted by modernesquire on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 9:57pm.
You should talk. Name one thing Common Cause has done. Just one freakin' thing. And you can't do it. I won because I'm right, and you can't do anything but engage in childish insults. You have no comeback. You've written comment after comment about how I'm "wrong", yet you've yet to actually say why I'm wrong. Instead, you're whining. Until you have something substantive to say, don't say anything.
ModernManiac the antithesis to Common Cause Ohio
Submitted by Nandia on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 9:50am.
Common Cause has done far more good for the general public than modernesquires long winded pathetically petty posts here at BSB.
http://www.progressohio.org/page/community/post/bretprogressohio/C2kv
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21730
The measure of this blogs effectiveness can be seen by the lack of "Premium Ads" in the upper left hand corner of this page. Also, the fact that BSB has only raised 15 percent of the donations for the "DNC Trip" (upper right corner) is also telling. Jeff over at Ohio Daily blog has doubled BSB, at 31%, regarding fundraising for the same DNC Trip.
ModernManiac, your wordy posts are tired and uninviting and your analysis is regularly weak. A simple google search reveals lots of good that Common Cause Ohio has done. You're just gunning against the organization for some yet to be disclosed political reason.
Who don't you like at Common Cause Ohio? You might as well be direct instead of writing 1,000,000 secretive and subtle uncommunicative words.
That's it?
Submitted by modernesquire on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 10:52am.
That's the best record you can cite for Common Cause. In both instances, Common Cause merely lent its name to voter protection actions being conducted by OTHER organizations. You apparently know the word antithesis, so I think your feigned ignorance on my post is apparent, now.
You've yet to actually address the subject of the post. And yet again, all you have is personal attack after another. Now, you want to attack BSB. Whatever.
I'm gunning against Common Cause/Ohio because they are wrong on the issue and is a do-nothing organization. Unlike ProgressOhio, I'm not a pay-to-say blogger. There's no secret agenda here.
If you hate my writing, then why do you keep reading them? :)
I don't hang on every word you write Modern
Submitted by Nandia on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 3:07pm.
That's what I've been trying to tell you. You're boring and uninformative and thus reading all your mumbo jumbo is not worth my time.
I cited two examples of projects Common Cause Ohio was PART of. Also, I stated that a common google search would produce many more examples. I'm not going to overwhelm readers with a wordy expose similar to most everything you write. You're full of yourself Modern, but you offer little insightful information that is helpful to readers.
Now, I'll address the subject of the post. You're a do nothing lawyer so STFU. You're nothing special like you like to believe about yourself.
Um, sure....
Submitted by modernesquire on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 8:25pm.
You don't hang on my every word, yet have felt compelled to respond to my every comment. It's sad, really, because in a dozen comments, you've yet to actually rebut this post. You've meandered from one area of personal attacks to another. But even then, you've done nothing but demonstrated how misinformed you are. And you've still haven't addressed the subject of this post. I'm bored with you.
Well Modern, I could spice it up a little
Submitted by Nandia on Sun, 08/24/2008 - 3:11pm.
but then you'd be whining about "personal attacks" or whatever. Plain and simple, I'm not an attorney but I trust Independent55's words far more than your words. Your words come off as disingenuous, insincere, inconsiderate, disorganized and far far too many in number in relation to how many are actually necessary. You don't impress me in the slightest modernesquire. I don't care how many meaningless words you type into blog posts, replies and comments.
LOL
Submitted by Nick D on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 1:11pm.
Nandia has reached laughable status in his/her attacks on BSB.
Also, the fact that BSB has only raised 15 percent of the donations for the "DNC Trip" (upper right corner) is also telling. Jeff over at Ohio Daily blog has doubled BSB, at 31%, regarding fundraising for the same DNC Trip.
If they could read, they would be able to see that the reason Jeff has "doubled" us is that we are asking for twice as much money! Jeff is asking for $1k, we're asking for two, and in terms of dollar amount raised, we're nearly even.
Also, Nandia, if you're going to criticize us, where's your great, stupendous blog that will put us to shame, or are you one of those people who makes fun of others just to make yourself feel better?
Jerid got New Hampshire Project Funded. You only raised $302
Submitted by Nandia on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 3:11pm.
and that is only $302 for two people. $151 isn't going to get each of you very far. It may buy you a few bottles of 151 rum, but that's about it.
BSB shows weakness - 15% "DNC Trip" fundraising - Why'd you go?
Submitted by Nandia on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 9:12am.
Jeff, over at Ohio Daily Blog, raised a respectable 41 % by himself ($415 of $1,000). BSB needlessly sent two bloggers on this DNC Trip. With twice as many people, BSB actually raised $113 LESS ($302 of $2,000) than one independent solitary person who went on the DNC trip from Ohio Daily Blog.
(See upper right hand corner of this page under "Contribute")
I don't understand why BSB got to go anyway, let alone why you sent TWO underfunded people which likely drained some opportunity for Jeff Coryell to maximize his fundraising. Originally, Jeff was the sole selection to travel to Denver, but BSB's unjustified whining got you unearned and underserved credentials. With that in mind, both Nick and David have been watering down and diminishing the overall Ohio blogging effort at the convention.
Also, I see you put up a "comp ad" (upper left under "premium ads") as a free public service to "The One Campaign." Will they be reporting your free service as a gift on campaign finance forms? We'll make sure to check!!
Ohio Daily Blog 15, Buckeye State Blog 5
Submitted by Nandia on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 9:42am.
"Denver Diaries" is a joint project of ODB and BSB
Jeff, from ODB, is averaging almost 4 posts a day
BSB's duo, Nick & David, each average 1/2 post a day (one total combined)
The party animal Jerid did a more respectable job for BSB contributors when he covered the New Hampshire primary (by himself).
Now, you tell me, do you believe contributors expected to only get one post a day for $60 apiece? I think not. Jeff Coryell's contributors at ODB got much more posting bang for their bucks at $28 per "Denver Diaries" post.
Praise to ODB's Jeff Coryell. Criticism to BSB's Nick & David
Ohio's "DNC Trip" Photos - ODB 240, BSB 0
Submitted by Nandia on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 10:05am.
Here's ODB's photo collection from Denver. Where is BSBs? BSB has 2 people attending versus only one for ODB. Significant? hmmmmm
BANNED
Submitted by Nick D on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 10:29am.
Nandia is displaying Hickman-like qualities, and so I have banned him.
For the record, apparently Nandia couldn't find David's flickr collection (but the Ohio GOP sure did). And I'd also like to point out that as Ohio's designated State Blogger Corps representative, Ohio Daily Blog has a permanent seat on the convention floor and is in a much better position to report on the convention (and take photos) then we are.
As part of the general blog pool, David and I have to fight for one of 50 designated blogger seats in the arena (which I caught former GOP Sen. Jack Danforth and his wife bogarting in Tuesday) and can only get rotating floor passes, when available, for 30 minutes at a time.
Why'd we go? We are a DNC credentialed blog. Why wouldn't we go? We'll dig into our own pockets if we have to. Oh, and that ad is not free. I'm sure the ONE campaign isn't going to be broken by paying our going advertising rate (which is $50/week)
Housing
Submitted by Nick D on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 10:40am.
One other thing: Jeff was able to get a room at the same hotel as the Ohio delegation in downtown Denver, whereas David and I are housed at a DNC-provided hotel way the hell out in suburban Aurora, CO. That means while Jeff is surrounded by newsmakers as soon as he gets out of bed, David and I face a 45-minute commute each morning just to get downtown in the first place.
Given the limitations we're operating under, I think we're doing a good job of covering the convention.
I've been an often critic here..
Submitted by Randy on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 10:58pm.
But you won't catch me criticizing here about the fund raising. I recently noticed a fund raising trend on several blogs and commented on it. As a jest, I suggested everyone send me money so I could research it more. Laughably, I received a donation.
I'm firmly convinced that fund raising has NO relevance on the actual popularity or usefullness of a blog. My blog is one example.
I think it's great that David and Nick got to go to Denver and I'm envious. While I don't share their enthusiasm for this party or this campaign, if I could have gone, I would have. I applaud them for following their dream.
Now will they go to Minneapolis.....
I'm Open To It
Submitted by dpotts on Thu, 08/28/2008 - 11:22pm.
But I think the invitation must have gotten lost in the mail. ;)
Nick & Modern
Submitted by ols on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 3:54pm.
When it comes to Nandia, I think a quote from my grandmama says it best: "There are ideas that area always worth fighting for, and there are people who are never worth fighting with."
wow "inappropriate" is too hard to understand?
Submitted by ols on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 3:27pm.
That's the longest, most complicated word I used. I'm sorry. I'll try to boil it down for you:
1. The Equal Protection Clause doesn't mean what Independent55 says it means. You don't have to treat Dann and Taft the same way just because they're both unethical and incompetent (shoot... I'm not sure how to boil down "incompetent"... "bad at their job?" better?).
2. The House gets to control the standards for impeachment. The Senate doesn't get to. The Senate has no right under the Ohio Constitution (that's the big document that governs how Ohio runs). You see, each part of the government gets to do certain things, and one of the things the House gets to do is decide when someone should be impeached or not. And the House doesn't have to listen to anyone else on this issue and no one else - not even the Senate - gets to tell the House whether their right or not.
3. If you want to change that - and make it so that the House doesn't get to decide by themselves or if you want to make it so that they can only impeach in certain circumstances - you have to *amend* the Constitution, not just pass a resolution. A resolution doesn't mean anything - it's not binding (that means the House doesn't have to pay attention). You might say, "But it sets a standard for the future." But, it doesn't because the future House doesn't have to listen. And if it did, that would be bad because we don't know what bad things bad elected people will do in the future, so we might not want to set a standard for this until we need to.
4. The House didn't vote on the articles of impeachment, that means there was no precedent set ('precedent' means a standard that would be used in the future). This means, no one in the future can say "but we took Dann out of office for this."
5. Dann did this to himself. He was incompetent. He resigned. Stop blaming other people.
6. The "will of the people" works through their elected officials. Elected officials are responsible for making sure other elected officials are held accountable (meaning they're punished) if they act unethically and there's a lot of time left in their terms. If there's not a lot of time left, maybe the elected officials won't impeach but will let the People decide whether to re-elect someone or not. But, when there's still 2/3 of a term left (meaning 4 out of 6 years), the elected officials shouldn't wait for the People to get to vote again. They can just impeach. That's why we elect them (part of the reason; another part is school funding but they're abysmal failures at that part, so for now we'll concentrate on what they get right every now and then).
7 . Dann did this to himself. He resigned.
8. These were serious allegations, not "I don't like you, nanananabooboo." Serious stuff. For grown-ups to deal with, and thankfully there are a few of those still left in Ohio's government who did by introducing the articles of impeachment. And thankfully Dann decided to be a grown-up and take responsibility for his actions.
9. Oh yeah, and Dann did this to himself.
Is that simple enough for you?
Oh and just for the record...
Submitted by ols on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 3:44pm.
My first response was also geared to a 9th grader, according to the software. My second one was for a sixth grader ...
Where is "effin" bonobo? - REPLY REQUESTED
Submitted by Nandia on Thu, 08/21/2008 - 9:48am.
At least honor us with a few more words. I know ols and modernesquire went overboard with far too many words, but you left us hanging with next to zero words. Can you embellish your thoughts a bit, please?
Common Cause was right
Submitted by Independent55 on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 8:31pm.
There are any number of reasons I could have been away from my computer or this website in the last couple of days. But modernesquire states I haven't posted because I can't answer his assertions. That's an example of illogically jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. Although I don't have time to address all the nonsense above, here are some comments. (1) No one said Tom Suddes is infallible. But he is very knowledgeable about the legislature, including savvy enough to realize that the Dems' impeachment resolution sets a terrible and dangerous precedent. In the above article, modernesquire argued that people who feel that way are "idiots." But now he's reduced to arguing that they're not infallible. That's quite a change. (2) And modernesquire couldn't be more wrong in arguing that the standard for impeachment under Art. II, Section 24 of the Ohio Constitution ("misdemeanor in office") is the same as the standard for recall of a public official under Art. II, Section 38. Section 38 allows laws to be passed for the removal of public officials for any misconduct involving moral turpitude "or for other cause provided by law." Clearly, Section 38 allows the legislature to pass statutes containing standards for recall that can be (and are) far lower than the standard for impeachment. And Section 38 permits the legislature to pass statutes expanding or contracting the standards for recall. But in the absence of a constitutional amendment, the standard for impeachment remains the same. Those facts alone show that the standards are different. Additionally, the fact that Section 24 describes the conduct as a "misdemeanor," while Section 38 refers to "misconduct," shows that the law is talking about two different things. (3)The article admits that "the Senate decides if the impeached offenses are sufficient cause for removal from office." That means the Senate is the ultimate arbiter of what are impeachable offenses. In any event, it was at least a matter of politeness to ask the Senate for its views on the issue, and Common Cause was showing respect for the Senate by doing so. But I think Common Cause would be satisfied with a resolution from only the House condemning the ridiculous impeachment resolution. (4) Almost all the Dems in the legislature supported the bill to have the inspector general investigate Dann's office. And that wouldn't have been the case if Strickland hadn't supported it. Strickland could have vetoed the bill, but he signed it. Obviously, the Dems are equally responsible for that unfair legislation. Anyone who knows the inner workings of the inspector general's office knows that unless the wrongdoing in the governor's administration is so blatant and publicized that the IG can't ignore it, the IG is a lapdog and toady for the governor. For example, in the 1990s Voinovich fired the IG when that IG began investigating the governor's chief of staff. And it wasn't a "political disaster"; Voinovich was reelected. Voinovich's hand-picked IG went on to exonerate the chief of staff, but a prosecutor subsequently saw things differently and sent the chief to prison. Another great job by the IG's office. (5) It is not true that Common Cause Ohio applauded Strickland's reappointment of Tom Charles as the inspector general. As reported in the newspapers, Common Cause criticized the reappointment. Common Cause viewed Charles as an underlying cause of the widespread corruption that flourished in the Taft administration. Charles didn't do anything about the problems until the media shined light on them, and at that point he didn't have any choice but to investigate. One has to wonder whether Strickland wants Charles to be a hack who will do the same for him. (6) It's also not true that no one has criticized the IG's lack of independence from the governor. On more than one occasion in the last few years, Common Cause has contacted the legislature about the problem. A few months ago, the legislators were provided with a Common Cause report documenting serious problems in the operation of the IG's office. The report is available through a public records request. Additionally, I believe that Common Cause led the successful legal challenge that forced public disclosure of the names of the corporate scoundrels who funded the shameful attack ads against Ohio Supreme Court Justice Resnick a few years ago. (7) In regard to the fact that we don't know what the House caucus's positon is on the impeachment of Bush, that itself is an outrage. Young members of the military from all over Ohio have lost their lives in the unnecessary war that the monstrous Bush repeatedly lied to take the country into. In his recent book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi convincingly argues that Bush should be indicted and tried for murder. House Democrats should therefore not only be calling for Bush's impeachment, but also calling on local prosecutors and the Ohio Attorney General's Office to bring murder charges against him. Instead, they go after fellow-Democrat Dann for acts such as failing to exercise due care in the administration of an office. I'm sure the families and friends of the killed Ohio soldiers really appreciate that. (8) Also in regard to the impeachment standards, modernesquire now says that maybe some of the articles in the impeachment resolution do not contain grounds for impeachment. But in the article, he said the resolution does not contain impeachment standards that are inconsistent with the Ohio Constitution. In other words, he's now saying that Common Cause is right, unless he's willing to say that impeachable offenses include acts such as "failing to secure the safety and security of state property." But he doesn't appear willing to do that. We all could have saved a lot of time and energy if he had bothered to read the articles of impeachment before deciding to defend them. (9) Regardless of whether impeachement is a political matter, when the legislators are sworn into office, they swear to uphold the Constitution. And the Equal Protection Clause is in the Constitution. Moreover, equal treatment is a basic principle on which the country was founded. But the Dems want to have a high impeachment standard for corporate servants such as Taft, and a much lower impeachment standard for persons such as Dann, who was willing to sue large corporations to defend average citizens. There was a time when Democratic leaders would have abhored such inequality. They would have denounced it by pointing to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, court decisions, pronouncements of great American leaders from the past, and basic notions of fairness. But those days, at least in Ohio, are gone. (10) Although each Ohioan had the ability to vote for Dann, they each can only vote for two members of the legislaure (and in my case, both of them are Republicans who didn't support the impeachment resolution). That's a good reason for maintaining a legal standard for impeachemnt, rather than allowing it to be decided at the whim of legislators, the vast majority of whom we each have no control over. The corporate lobbyists have far more control over them than we do. And I think it's no coincidence that the corporate media so quickly jumped on the remove-the-populist-Dann bandwagon. (11) Common Cause probably didn't criticize the Plain Dealer's calls for Dann to resign because of another constitutional protection that modernesquire seems to overlook: the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech. The Constitution gives people the right to say foolish things. And he should be very grateful for that. (12) Finally (at least for now), someone asked whether an "ad hominem" attack can be made on a group such as Common Cause. Because the article called Common Cause "idiots," my answer is yes.
Missing the point (again)
Submitted by modernesquire on Sat, 08/23/2008 - 8:52pm.
Suddes supported recall which, as it stands now, has the same standard as impeachment. Although the GA COULD later change that standard, that doesn't change the fact that the current standard for recall is the same as impeachment, if not more stringent. The act of impeachment is the act of charging an official, similar to an indictment. The Senate trial is similar to a court trial. Like a trial jury, the Senate doesn't set the standard to charge an official. It just decides if the charged offenses and evidence is sufficient to remove the official from office. It's diffent issues.
I never said no one criticized Charles, but I said it was largely applauded.
Again, the Ohio House Democrats don't have any jurisdiction over the impeachment of a federal official. Nor do they have the power to charge people for murder. Neither does the AG.
The House Democrats didn't try to impeach Taft because the Ohio Republicans said they wouldn't support it. Since the Democrats were in the minority, what was the point? That's why I said impeachment is a political issue, not a legal one.
The Equal Protection clause has zero application to this issue. Imagine a criminal challenging his indictment because someone else may have committed an unrelated offense but wasn't criminally charged. Yeah, no judge is throwing that indictment out, either. There is no court decision that supports your EPC argument. Perhaps that's the real reason the Democrats didn't "denounce it by poiting to" such non-exist court decisions.
Sorry, but the reality is that impeachment is not a legal decision so long as it's left to the legislature. It's a political decision.
You completely missed the point about my point about the lack of criticism to those who were calling for Dann to resign. How is that any less offensive to the electoral mandate than an attempt to impeach an elected official under the Constitution. That's why Common Cause's selective outrage is odd.
Common Cause is idiotic because they are asking the legislature to take the time out to denounce a bill it never passed. That's just bizarre. And they're asking the Senate to take a position on an issue they have no constitutional authority over.
Please learn to format.
Modern, Ease up on newbies who aren't formatting correctly
Submitted by Nandia on Sun, 08/24/2008 - 2:45pm.
Independent55's points are much more refined and easier to understand than yours modernesquire, even with the formatting issue. When you (modernesquire) act like a inconsiderate boob to newcomers, they go away, never to return.
It is likely that Independent55 is typing the replies into a word processor first and then cutting and pasting them into this Blog's reply box. I know from experience that this sort of action messes up formatting (paragraph breaks and such).
Thus, if Independent55 would try to type replies directly into the blog reply box, I'm speculating that the format issue would resolve itself. However, brainless and mannerless modernesquire would rather belittle someone than accommodate them here at the unwelcoming Buckeye State Blog.
A brief summary of why Common Cause was right
Submitted by Independent55 on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 10:31pm.
I think the main reasons that Common Cause was right can be summarized as follows.
(1) As even modernesquire seemed to eventually admit, Common Cause was right that the articles of impeachment used standards that are inconsistent with the Ohio Constitution. But over 40 members of the Ohio House (all Democrats) were dumb enough, reckless enough, or cowardly enough to support those standards. That number is scary itself. But who knows how many more legislators would have supported the incorrect standards if the Republicans had considered them. On other issues, they’ve shown a tendency to be even more dumb, reckless, and cowardly.
(2) Experienced legislative reporter Tom Suddes said, in effect, that the standards set a terrible and dangerous precedent. He qualifies as an expert, and apparently no other expert on that subject has come forward to disagree with him.
(3) Because the resolution contained incorrect standards for removal of the people’s elected officials and can be used as a very harmful precedent, Common Cause reasonably saw the resolution as a threat to fundamental democratic principles. So in their capacity as unpaid volunteers for the organization, Common Cause’s representatives worked to try to remove that threat and protect democracy and the rule of law.
(4) For taking that action, the Buckeye State Blog denounced Common Cause and encouraged readers to have nothing to do with such people. What’s that say about the BS Blog?
(5) As for the inspector general, he is not only appointed by the governor but also virtually serves at the pleasure of the governor – who strongly wanted Dann out of office. There is simply no way such an investigator can be considered independent and impartial. If the governor and legislature had wanted to be fair, they could have appointed someone like a retired Republican judge or prosecutor having an impeccable reputation for fairness. But neither the governor nor the legislature wanted justice. They both wanted to score political points for their respective sides, and were willing to do so at the expense of fairness and democracy. Common Cause said that’s wrong.
(6) No matter how many words and irrelevancies are thrown at these facts, they remain the facts.
(7) For a detailed explanation of why the impeachment standard differs from the recall standard, people can obtain a copy of Common Cause's letter to the legislative leaders.
Wrong again...
Submitted by modernesquire on Wed, 08/27/2008 - 10:59pm.
1) Don't put words in my mouth, that I never said. What I DID say was that you can't say that a resolution that was never voted on by the House set a precedent any more than any other piece of legislation that was never voted on. Second, it's incredibly naive to believe that the resolution would not have been changed had it made its way through the legislative process.
2) Thomas Suddes is not a constitutional law expert, and didn't consult with any in his reporting. Two constitutional law experts, who literally wrote the definative book on Ohio's constitutional law, disagreed with the PD's asserted standard for impeachment based on legal and historical precedent. The PD, Suddes included, had no such authority. Common Cause claimed that felonious criminal activity was the standard for impeachment under Ohio's constitution. This is wrong legally and historically as Ohio has impeached for non-criminal "misconduct" in the past.
3) This "threat to democracy" is a bill that was never voted on by a House committee, let alone the whole House. It's weight as "precedent" is nill as it was never sanctioned by the House as a precedent. The resolution cited the proper constitutional standard- misconduct in office.
4) That BSB is going to call out do-nothing "public interest" groups that demand that the legislature pass a meaningless resolution to denounce something it never did when there are far more pressing issues in Ohio (and that the General Assembly isn't even in session.) Here's what a later AP story said about the impact of Common Cause's letter:
"Early reaction to Woods' letter last week was underwhelming. It appears neither party is much interested in bringing up Dann, Taft or everyone's respective scandals this close to the Nov. 4 election."
Says something about their credibility.
5) If the IG can currently investigate the Governor's office (it's current jurisdiction), and that's an acceptable conflict, then there's no real conflict of interest. It's a red herring. I'd note that Common Cause's letter proposed no solution. I think it's amazing that you think a Republican judge investigating a Democratic officeholder is somehow beyond question.
6) Pot calling kettle, it's for you...
7) Funny, never saw that in the letter, care to post a link? Because I couldn't find any evidence in any of the newstories that supported this claim.
I welcome the debate, but you're just recycling the same points on flimsy evidence that is factually wrong. In Ohio's history, the House has impeached solely on non-criminal misconduct in office. SInce that is the "dangerous precedent" that Common Cause incorrectly claimed that the resolution set, their letter is nonsense.
Seriously, if you find a link to the full text of the letter, I'd like to see it. But I don't recall any reporting supporting your claims that you're making.
a-effin-men n/t
signed, bonobo