Chandra Pleads Guilty
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 7:24am.
Attorney General Race
I just received this email from Subodh Chandra:
Real change agents make some people angry, because real leadership often means doing ‘controversial’ things--when in reality they are the right things. Some people at the Cleveland Law Department called me arrogant when I made sweeping changes. I did these things on behalf of the people of the City of Cleveland. I knew that the department needed reform and did what needed to be done to restore this once-great department’s reputation.
(See related Cleveland Law Journal article at http://www.chandraforohio.com/html/articles.html)
One of my faults is that I am impatient for change. Very impatient. So I can come off as a bulldog--note subtle arrogant reference to Yale law school :-) Again, this impatience originates from my desire to make the system within which I am working a better, more productive place that benefits citizens, not bureaucrats, not the guy who has more money or knows somebody important. (One of my friends used to call me “Che Guevera” because he said I would go from law firm to law firm liberating all the associates.) I strive to treat everyone civilly, but have learned I can't please everyone. If pleasing everyone were my priority I would have pushed aside cases involving wrongfully convicted citizens like Michael Green. I knew the system had wronged an innocent man and I took steps to make right a horrific miscarriage of justice.
(See related Connie Schultz article at http://www.chandraforohio.com/html/cleveland_plain_dealer.HTM)
And of course if pleasing those who could butter my future bread were a priority I wouldn’t have angered powerful people in Cleveland’s legal community by slashing outside-counsel spending by 88%. It was the right on behalf of citizens.
(See Staying Home for Legal Opinions’ article at http://www.chandraforohio.com/html/articles.html)
Also, I must point out that I LEFT big law firms for public service and am now in solo practice. I grew up in a middle-class immigrant household. Hard work and discipline were the priority. Like many students, I financed my bachelor’s and law degrees through massive student loans. I endured working at large law firms to help pay them off and bolted as soon as I could afford to take a public-service opportunity. Using my law degree to work on behalf of people has been and will continue to be my professional priority.
My wife, a civil-rights lawyer who was once MY PERSONAL LAWYER, could kick my butt in court, and does kick my butt at home, is a proud graduate of the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. So was my top deputy at the Cleveland Law Department whom I hired and recommended for promotion to the directorship when I left.
I plead guilty to being impatient and wanting change NOW. Why? Because the people of Ohio have gotten a 100% royal screwing from their leadership for over a decade, most especially from their Attorneys’ General. Just as I’ve done throughout my career, I will right these wrongs and work on behalf of all Ohioans for the change that they deserve TODAY! Will I tick some people off in the process? Yes. Ohioans, however, deserve nothing less than a bulldog in their corner for once.
On the attack
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 8:14am.
Tim, I don't think that Chandra was missing your point because in my opinion he wasn't talking about it. If you want a response to your attack, go and seek a comment from the candidate. He is very easy to reach, as I have discovered.
Also, you are quoting Chandra out of context. Do him the courtesy of providing the full quotes in context or linking (see use case above) to the specific places where you heard him make these so called attacks. It is HIGHLY questionable of anyone to accuse someone of saying something without first providing the context. We saw this all the time from people shilling for Sherrod Brown online. Please don’t let that be the standard in the AGs race.
repeat after me
Submitted by Tim Russo on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 8:35am.
"Russo's probably gonna vote for Subodh".
not sure how many times i have to write that. how you equate what i wrote with "an attack", given that i've practically endorsed the guy is beyond my understanding. save the knee jerk for Kos. clearly, neither you nor subodh are taking this advice in the spirit it was intended.
i've interviewed subodh twice, one on one, and at the debate. i proofread the transcript (which i hope is posted soon). if you want the entire context, go listen to the podcast, it's there 24/7.
i didn't make an attack. i didn't make some innuendo that other commenters made. i pointed out i was getting tired of hearing this line over and over again - politician with a law degree - small practice - fender benders - divorce lawyer - senator in a minority - "laughable" - can't handle massive teams of lawyers - it's a huge turnoff.
if it doesn't turn you off, well, whatever. sorry.
not sure how many times i have to write that. how you equate what i wrote with "an attack", given that i've practically endorsed the guy is beyond my understanding. save the knee jerk for Kos. clearly, neither you nor subodh are taking this advice in the spirit it was intended.
i've interviewed subodh twice, one on one, and at the debate. i proofread the transcript (which i hope is posted soon). if you want the entire context, go listen to the podcast, it's there 24/7.
i didn't make an attack. i didn't make some innuendo that other commenters made. i pointed out i was getting tired of hearing this line over and over again - politician with a law degree - small practice - fender benders - divorce lawyer - senator in a minority - "laughable" - can't handle massive teams of lawyers - it's a huge turnoff.
if it doesn't turn you off, well, whatever. sorry.
Sorry Tim
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 8:40am.
I hold public discourse to a higher standard. When you don't like something that a candidate does, I expect you to first say exactly what it is that they did.
I objected to it when they did it to Paul Hackett. I objected to it when they did it to you. I object to it when you do it to Subodh Chandra. That's how I play.
Maybe it's my background in debate. There we would say that your argument loses on two points: 1) topicality - Your arguing about something completely off topic. 2) evidence - You don't prove your attack with references.
If you're to lazy to do the legwork of providing the specific context, your argument isn't worth making in the firstplace. Somewhere in this hour long mp3 file someone said something that is somehow like something that I don't like is a pretty weak standard for public discourse. You can do better Tim. I've seen you do it.
I objected to it when they did it to Paul Hackett. I objected to it when they did it to you. I object to it when you do it to Subodh Chandra. That's how I play.
Maybe it's my background in debate. There we would say that your argument loses on two points: 1) topicality - Your arguing about something completely off topic. 2) evidence - You don't prove your attack with references.
If you're to lazy to do the legwork of providing the specific context, your argument isn't worth making in the firstplace. Somewhere in this hour long mp3 file someone said something that is somehow like something that I don't like is a pretty weak standard for public discourse. You can do better Tim. I've seen you do it.
For the record
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 8:51am.
I know exactly what Tim is talking about and I actually agree with him. I just don't want to make his case for him. Trolls like to use these vague comments to spiral off into other crap, such as the elitist hearsay. I want to be very clear in what we are talking about.
Tim, I think Ohio2 just . . .
Submitted by Alan Harvard on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 10:01am.
. . . turned on the theme song from Rocky for you!
Come on baby - YOU can Do it! Run those stairs, throw those fists in the air!
welcome back Harvard...
Submitted by redenemy on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 10:11am.
we missed you... you're back just in time for: The Skeet Shoot Summer
welcome back Harvard...
Submitted by redenemy on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 10:11am.
we missed you... you're back just in time for: The Skeet Shoot Summer
I still have no clue
Submitted by staff on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 8:59am.
what you are talking about.
do you think a divorce attorney is qualified to be AG ? especially one with a SC reprimand ? Not sure I do. I think Chandra's point makes itself without further allusion.
Sure a minor leaguer can play in the world series - he knows the rules and has the same bat - doesnt mean he can COMPETE in the majors - only a small number make it that far. Maybe Dann is one of those people, but i aint seeing it.
St. Jude
Submitted by Castro_Democrat on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 8:23am.
His note was a good one, and supremely relevant to discussions we've had here. He already had my vote. If he hadn't referenced a Connie Schultz article, he would have earned my respect.
Still, I'm not sure why there's such emphasis on this race. There is but a handful of people south of I-80 that are going to vote for a guy named Subodh Chandra over a guy named Marc Dann. The worse news is that the primary is irrelevent considering the fait accompli that is Betty Montgomery for AG.
Still, I'm not sure why there's such emphasis on this race. There is but a handful of people south of I-80 that are going to vote for a guy named Subodh Chandra over a guy named Marc Dann. The worse news is that the primary is irrelevent considering the fait accompli that is Betty Montgomery for AG.
Wrong!
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 8:30am.
Warren County Dems (aka Southern Ohio) has already endorsed Chandra. This is a primary. Leaders in the local party have a huge impact on things. Chandra has been making a very good impression all around the area. Make the case and Chandra wins every time based both on his resume and his charisma. Compare names and Dann wins. Compare men and Chandra wins every time.
As for the importance of the race, just look to New York and see what impact the AG's office has had.
The big question is are we going to assume the worst in Ohio voters or the best. I chose to assume the best. To be honest with you the worst isn't looking so good right now.
As for the importance of the race, just look to New York and see what impact the AG's office has had.
The big question is are we going to assume the worst in Ohio voters or the best. I chose to assume the best. To be honest with you the worst isn't looking so good right now.
Other Southern Support?
Submitted by Castro_Democrat on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 8:36am.
Fair points.
To clarify, I don't think that the AG race, or the position is unimportant. I thinkt that Betty has it in the bag. She is consistently the top vote getter in the state. She is a train that can't be derailed.
I didn't know about Warren County, but I'm very surprised. I wonder if it was an endorsement of Chandra or a rejection of Dann. Any other southern Ohio support?
To clarify, I don't think that the AG race, or the position is unimportant. I thinkt that Betty has it in the bag. She is consistently the top vote getter in the state. She is a train that can't be derailed.
I didn't know about Warren County, but I'm very surprised. I wonder if it was an endorsement of Chandra or a rejection of Dann. Any other southern Ohio support?
Seems
Submitted by staff on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 8:52am.
betty's train already came off the tracks which is how she ended up running for AG and not Gov - so your premise fails at the first hurdle.
The right track.
Submitted by Castro_Democrat on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 9:21am.
Disagree.
For the record, I'm not hot for Betty. She got out of the Gov's race because she knew that the Gov's race wasn't going to be a sure thing. To perpetuate the metaphor, she wanted to stay on the right track.
In a month, do you think we'll be in this space talking about how Dann (maybe Chandra) is a sure bet for AG? We won't.
Just watch. When Betty hits full speed, her opponent will get railroaded.
For the record, I'm not hot for Betty. She got out of the Gov's race because she knew that the Gov's race wasn't going to be a sure thing. To perpetuate the metaphor, she wanted to stay on the right track.
In a month, do you think we'll be in this space talking about how Dann (maybe Chandra) is a sure bet for AG? We won't.
Just watch. When Betty hits full speed, her opponent will get railroaded.
Typical
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 9:24am.
loser Democrat mentality. I heard it about the 2nd all the time. If they fought like winners we would have won.
They were wrong then. You are wrong now.
They were wrong then. You are wrong now.
Pick your battles.
Submitted by Castro_Democrat on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 9:31am.
It's important that we pick our fights. From the short past, I know that we both agree that "fight to win" is a suitable mantra. However, we should pick the battles that we can win. Resources, effort...they're limited. Can't beat Betty. Go for Blackwell. Then DeWine. They're bleeding.
Attrition
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 9:46am.
I reject your approach. Party politics is a battle of attrition. You fight all up and down the line. Every soldier is important. You concentrate resources at weakspots but you fight everywhere. The AG fight brings light on corruption which spills into SoS and Gov and etc etc etc. This is one battle that we cannon afford to ignore.
Even though we lost in the 2nd, we drained huge amounts of cash from the NRCC... money that they could be using now to defend House seats. Since we used new methods of fundraising, we didn't lose any resources in the process and opened up new ones.
You're really sounding like an old school Dem. 21st century baby. Time to wake up.
Even though we lost in the 2nd, we drained huge amounts of cash from the NRCC... money that they could be using now to defend House seats. Since we used new methods of fundraising, we didn't lose any resources in the process and opened up new ones.
You're really sounding like an old school Dem. 21st century baby. Time to wake up.
Ditto
Submitted by Alan Harvard on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 10:09am.
Your 'pick your battles' crap is losing battles.
You remind me of the volunteer that shows up in the office on the weekend before the election when it looks like we are going to win, and then leaves at noon on election day to go home and start getting ready for the party, drinks all the free booze at the party, calls the candidate the next day because they have not yet been properly thanked for their hard works and spends the next 2 to 6 years harassing the candidate for favors because "I was one of your volunteers".
Get off your ass. Pick out a candidate NOW. Just ONE. and WORK for that person. You will be AMAZED at what you and 5 friends can do in a local election.
You're right.
Submitted by Muffet on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 12:10pm.
Those of us who actually worked from early on in Ohio second, accomplished a lot because we were committed from the get go. Let's all get committed to Chandra now and put our feet and our wallets where our mouths are.
I totally agree, Ohio 2nd
Submitted by AmberCat on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 10:12am.
If we can't beat tired, damaged, recycled goods like Betty Noe-Montgomery, then what is the point? We elect a governor who has a hostile legislature and an entirely Republican statewise slate (because if Chandra can't do it, neither can Brunner or Cordray or Sykes, all much less fiery candidates)?
I'm sorry but I just don't see Betty as this implacable force of nature that can't be overcome. Four years ago, she wasn't damaged. She was a nice Republican lady running in the aftermath of 9-11 when a cowering nation believed it needed to vote Republican across the board to stay "safe." Hardly anyone outside Republican inner circles had heard of Tom Noe.
If she was such a force, why did her gubernatorial campaign totally fail to catch fire? Jim Noe-Petro is hardly the most vivid, exciting and pure candidate around. Blackwell has a certain limited amount of fire coming from the ultra-right evangelicals,but I don't think it's enough people to make him governor.
Frankly, if we don't take the AG and SoS offices, even if we do elect Strickland, we've barely made an inch of progress, and the state will continue into the toilet, because the Republicans will want to conmtinue to cover up for themselves and their party.
Such defeatism is not helpful and I don't think it's realistic, either. I think it's a deep pessimism that unrealistically only looks at the negative facts and can become self-fullfilling. I know that if I hear too much of it, my impulse is to just throw up my hands and give up. And I'm an exceptionally optimistic and upbeat person, so think what this kind of talk does to others who are a little more cautious.
Perhaps I don’t have your naiveté.
Submitted by Castro_Democrat on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 1:21pm.
I wish that I could speak from a position of expertise, but I’m an anonymous poster, so that won’t hold water. I’ll try to answer nonetheless.
Criticizing my realism with your dreams is admirable. Perhaps I don’t have your conviction. Perhaps I don’t have your naiveté.
The reason why you can’t beat “recycled goods” is because of you are confusing “recycled” with “entrenched.” Neither Dann nor Chandra have a statewide mechanism dedicated to his cause. Strickland is the focus of top-tier dedicated democrat support, and down-ticket is not.
In contrast Betty has a well-tested, well-oiled, loyal machine that has 12 years of working together, using the same folks in the same places and they know how to work together. This is not a targeted race.
Alan – my argument is not suggesting a wait-and-see approach. In fact, the top of this thread argues that we focus on the battles we CAN win (not WILL win). I hate those people too – especially the ones that are good at it.
It's your type of thinking
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 1:27pm.
that lost us the 2nd. I really really wish that everyone in the DCCC who thinks and acts like you do could be fired so that we can get busy taking over the House. I don't know how else to get them to focus on winning.
The well oiled Republican machine is crumbling in front of your eyes and yet you still cower before it... don't raise up... don't fight... don't attack... they might fight back... they might strike us with their bandersnatch and we wouldn't want to hurt our snickersnee. We need Democrats who are fighters. We need Democrats who are too busy fighting to spend a moment telling another Democrat not to fight. Please... I'm begging you... retire.
The well oiled Republican machine is crumbling in front of your eyes and yet you still cower before it... don't raise up... don't fight... don't attack... they might fight back... they might strike us with their bandersnatch and we wouldn't want to hurt our snickersnee. We need Democrats who are fighters. We need Democrats who are too busy fighting to spend a moment telling another Democrat not to fight. Please... I'm begging you... retire.
Don't support Strickland: I want him to win.
Submitted by Castro_Democrat on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 1:35pm.
2nd: We are on the same team. I am not saying that we cower, I am saying that take out the snake at it's head.
They are bigger than we are. I am not telling any one not to fight; I am telling us to focus and win a fight.
Do me a favor, don't support Strickland. Don't support Brown. I want them to win.
They are bigger than we are. I am not telling any one not to fight; I am telling us to focus and win a fight.
Do me a favor, don't support Strickland. Don't support Brown. I want them to win.
I Love It
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 1:39pm.
You're doing Strickland a big favor by discounting the AG race. That will make his life a lot easier.
Fool. Just watch what a living hell Montgomery can bring to Strickland if thye both win.
You're an old guard defeatist, by your own admissions. Time to put you out to pasture.
Fool. Just watch what a living hell Montgomery can bring to Strickland if thye both win.
You're an old guard defeatist, by your own admissions. Time to put you out to pasture.
I'm right there with you Castro...
Submitted by redenemy on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 1:40pm.
Take out the guys that are already bleeding... Don't rock the boat, just wait for them to take themselves out...
as the great Ed Helms said: I am right there with you. I got mugged the other day. And, this bum was beating me a bottle. And I said, "You know what, I am going to sit back and wait for him to accidentally hit himself with the bottle." And sure enough, he did. I mean, I was unconscious, but I think I won that battle.
Take your condescension and stuff it, loser
Submitted by AmberCat on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 2:16pm.
I have never been perceived as "naive" by anyone who knows me and I am certainly not a dreamer (I drive people crazy with my refusal to buy into ANY conspiracy theories!). But you are a quitter and a defeatist if you can honestly believe that Betty is such a potent, attractive candidate. If you do not see that the so-called "well-oiled" Republican "machine" is rusty and shedding parts everywhere and that much has changed in the last four years, let alone the last 12, then I'd have to see you lack realism. This is how we lose- by falsely perceiving our opponents as an omnipotent, error-free unbeatable monolith. Oh boo hoo. Go cry with Tom DeLay. I hear he's unbeatable too.
Wait, I thought Tom DeLay resigned yesterday.
Submitted by Mr. Common Sense on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 2:37pm.
I think he's definitely beatable. Definitely.
boy, this chundra guy
Submitted by RMC2000 on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 2:52pm.
sure gets everyone's gutchies in knots. here's my 2 cents (not that you care). unless you are a max-out donor, i think castro is making sense. sure you want to support every democrat, but support actually means money and time. i don't think anyone is saying, "don't vote for chundra or dann." castro's point is, i think, that it's best to focus money and time where it can do the most good. that is, unless you have maxed out in the senate and governor's race. then, you've done as much as you can so, if you want to keep on donating, focus on some of the longer shots. i know there are a lot of idealists on this site, and i commend you for it. idealism is at the heart of the democratic party. but when it comes down to it, politics is rough and tumble, where hard choices have to be made and deals broken. there simply is not enough time and money to fully support each and every democrat running for office. and while it is up to each person to decide where their time and money will be best spent, that should not equate to where it is most needed. sometimes, as castro said, you have to focus on the fights you can win, even if that means leaving a friend behind.
Yes
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 2:59pm.
Every race for itself. That's exactly how Gingrich took over the House.
I'm not really sure what the point in all this is. What's your goal? Since Chandra is such a well qualified candidate we should ignore him since no one, not even superman, can win the race? That we should drone on endlessly about Ted Strickland, since he's the only Dem that has a realistic chance of winning? That us prols at the bottom need to trust our ODP masters since they've got the proven experience and track record to lead us to victory? What are you trying to say?
I'm not really sure what the point in all this is. What's your goal? Since Chandra is such a well qualified candidate we should ignore him since no one, not even superman, can win the race? That we should drone on endlessly about Ted Strickland, since he's the only Dem that has a realistic chance of winning? That us prols at the bottom need to trust our ODP masters since they've got the proven experience and track record to lead us to victory? What are you trying to say?
the only thing i'm saying
Submitted by RMC2000 on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 3:16pm.
is that it is not a bad idea to focus time and money on the fights that can be won. if chandra wins the primary and you think he can win the general, then great. but if you only have $500 to give, 9 out of 10 times its best to give it to the top of the ticket, who, 9 out of 10 times, can pull the whole party along with him. no one but the fanatics care about a.g. races. no one pays attention to their commercials or their statements or their polls. they pay attention to the top of the ticket, if they pay attention at all. come election time, you are all going to wish that you never heard from another candidate or campaign for as long as you live. there's just too much coming at you. most people only pay attention to the big dogs.
One more reason
Submitted by AmberCat on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 3:21pm.
to not give anything to Sherrod Brown. At this point, the race doesn't seem winnable. Do you think that's a viable tactic? I certainly won't be giving him anything, maybe not even my vote. But if he started to run a better campaign, I don't think it would be entirely unreasonable for people to donate to him, even though he'd stll be a longshot.
Honestly, I think the state races need the focus and need to be focused on as a package: it's all about change and serving the citizens not the big-money donors.
if you think that sherrod
Submitted by RMC2000 on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 3:28pm.
is a long shot, then i don't think it's wise to give to his campaign. give that same money to candidates who can win. i don't agree that he is a long shot, but if that's what you think, then i think you would be right to give that money to someone who you think has a better chance of winning. you don't like brown, so that's an easy call for you. it's much harder when you have to make that call about a friend.
It aint just about money
Submitted by staff on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 4:12pm.
it's about message too and getting it out there. He is generating a decent amount of earned media and i would like to think that is in some way part of the blog support he has gotten up and down the state and the excitement has been picked up on - it has certainly been mentioned at county Dem clubs and helped influence endorsements.
Well, I'm picking this one!
Submitted by Lucie on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 7:36pm.
This guy is worth it -- I'll do what I can, which includes pestering my friends and family and alerting my savvy children and their friends to get behind this. Once they know about Chandra, they'll love him -- this guy is the future -- or at least the future I hope we can have.
I think Strickland is going to win, and I really hope Brown will -- but I want Chandra too -- and what I don't have in money I'll try to make up for with mouth and pen.
I'm too old to worry about his being a rockstar, but I'm sold.
My opinion
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 8:53am.
is that there's no way that Dann can beat Montgomery just because there's too much dirt to use against him. Our only hope is Chandra. He's the type of person that can attack her head on.
As for defeatism, I'm not buying. She's so strong because she's been completely ignored. Dems need to step up and play offense.
As for defeatism, I'm not buying. She's so strong because she's been completely ignored. Dems need to step up and play offense.
I can tell you this about Betty
Submitted by Castro_Democrat on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 9:24am.
I can tell you this about Betty: in Republican circles, she is regarded as the hardest, most enduring campaigner in the party. I think that you're right: she hasn't been tested in a way that we see her true grit. Maybe that's why she can endure while others can't. Without putting much thought into it, I bet being a woman makes it hard to beat her up.
I'm not sure why you think Betty Noe is so unbeatable
Submitted by AmberCat on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 9:59am.
She's bleeding much worse than DeWine in my opinion; I think if anyone has it in the bag it's him, pending of course dramatic changes in Brown's campaign. But Noe-Montgomery can't do much about the fact that since the last time she ran, the degree to which the state is awash in Republican scandal has become obvious and the degree to which Noe-Montgomery's office itself has been involved has been exposed. This is a woman who sat for a couple of months AFTER the Coingate scandal broke insisting nothing was wrong and there was nothing to investigate, just like her cohort Jimmy Noe-Petro. She can campaign as hard as she likes; unfortunately she has no record of accomplishment to campaign on and I don't know how gays, gays, abortion and gays is going to work for AG.
Unfortunately, if Noe-Montgomery has it in the bag, then so does every other statewide Republican candidate she'll drag along on her coattails, with Strickland eking out a win, but being completely useless and isolated. If this is your real belief, then the Democratic party in this state should cease to exist right now.
Personally, I do NOT believe this. I don't believe that, south of Columbus, almost all votes will automatically go to the Anglo name. First of all, voters that out of the loop tend not to vote in primaries, and Chandra has been working hard to get himself in front of people. I think he has a real shot, both in the primary and the general election.
Agree
Submitted by Jill on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 11:26am.
with pretty much everything you've written today and yesterday on Chandra/Dann/Montgomery and the AG's race.
He's very popular
Submitted by Muffet on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 12:06pm.
in Hamilton County, Jean Schmidt Land.
Popular among Democrats sure . . .
Submitted by Alan Harvard on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 3:18pm.
. . . but we need Republican and Inde votes too . . . especially in Hamilton County.
And what makes you think
Submitted by modernesquire on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 3:19pm.
that he can't get independant votes in Hamilton County better than Dann?
Have you listened to him?
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 3:48pm.
That's why I think he can.
No one down there is going
Submitted by Castro_Democrat on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 4:16pm.
No one down there is going to listen to cat named Subodh with an open mind. They might accidentally vote for a guy named Marc Dann.
Obviously
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 4:34pm.
you speak from ignorance. I've talked to many people before and after they've listened to Subodh, including certain bloggers that shall remain nameless (unless they want to speak up).
You argue well for Marc Dann: Dann: the more white sounding candidate in print.
You argue well for Marc Dann: Dann: the more white sounding candidate in print.
logical flaw here
Submitted by Lucie on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 7:28pm.
Even someone you don't like might be right about one thing or another -- insights come from lots of places -- but there are some grammatical errors in the piece.
He's also guilty
Submitted by AmberCat on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 10:00am.
of misusing an apostrophe in his last paragraph "attorneys general" doesn't take an apostrophe.
AmberCat is right
Submitted by SusanD on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 10:08am.
Montgomery has several large hurdles of her own examples of incompetence/complicity to overcome.
How does this poll in Ohio?
Submitted by Cloud on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 11:51am.
So why hasn't this made the blog today? Front page Metro.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1144226040101640.xml&coll=2
Subodh's organization funneled money from the Indian embassy into American campaigns. Under his watch.
Yea, this'll go over great with Ohioans.
He's obviously been cleared of any legal wrongdoing. But you're on crack if you think this won't make for a devastating attack ad. It's strange. It's interesting. It's memorable. And it's a problem.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1144226040101640.xml&coll=2
Subodh's organization funneled money from the Indian embassy into American campaigns. Under his watch.
Yea, this'll go over great with Ohioans.
He's obviously been cleared of any legal wrongdoing. But you're on crack if you think this won't make for a devastating attack ad. It's strange. It's interesting. It's memorable. And it's a problem.
because it's a non-story
Submitted by redenemy on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 12:08pm.
I'm no Chandra fan, but this is a non-story. If anything this makes Chandra look better: He's a whistle blower, stopping illegal overseas contributions...
Redenemy is right . . .
Submitted by Mr. Common Sense on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 12:12pm.
. . . Chandra was duped by his former mentor. That's not his fault. He trusted, got burned, and learned a lesson.
I am not necessarily Chandra's biggest fan either, however, his ethical behavior in this case is laudable, and would seem to be a strong indicator of how he would run his AG's office.
Can you read?
Submitted by plunderbund on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 12:14pm.
did you read the article? you might also try digging into it a bit more. Subodh is one of the reasons Gadhia was busted. i think you should follow your own advice and put the crack pipe down...
are you a nephew or uncle?
"You better get politics or politics will get you" - my grandmother
are you a nephew or uncle?
"You better get politics or politics will get you" - my grandmother
Thanks!
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 12:17pm.
Joseph Evans, a former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted Gadhia, said Chandra cooperated with the government even though doing so subjected him to substantial criticism from his Indian friends.
He also says it's a testament to Chandra's character that the Justice Department later hired him.
"What it says is the Department of Justice ... concluded that he was the kind of person who had the moral integrity to be hired," Evans said. "I think that speaks volumes."
Another reason to vote Chandra.
I think you have all missed the point of my last comment.
Submitted by Cloud on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 1:11pm.
I even said " He's obviously been cleared of any legal wrongdoing." However, think for one moment how this will appear to most Ohians in a 30 second attack ad. It is obvious this will have an impact, as can be seen by the flurry of defensive and negative responses I have received by people who didn't even take the time to understand my post (similar to people who would watch an attack ad and have an emotional response witout "digging into it a bit more"). If I wanted to attack Chandra why would I link an article that praises him?
This site is full of Chandra supporters, yet the one poster that isn't is immeadiately accused of being an "uncle or nephew." I will assure you that I am neither nor do I have any personal stake in the outcome of this race.
Under Subodh Chandra's watch, the Indian-American Leadership Fund laundered money from a foreign government into American campaigns. Be real- that sounds freaking terrible. He's innocent of any legal wrongdoing (obviously). But you think the politics of this are going to play out positively?
This site is full of Chandra supporters, yet the one poster that isn't is immeadiately accused of being an "uncle or nephew." I will assure you that I am neither nor do I have any personal stake in the outcome of this race.
Under Subodh Chandra's watch, the Indian-American Leadership Fund laundered money from a foreign government into American campaigns. Be real- that sounds freaking terrible. He's innocent of any legal wrongdoing (obviously). But you think the politics of this are going to play out positively?
Let them lie
Submitted by Ohio2nd on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 1:17pm.
I for one welcome the chance to pounce on their lies. Please, GOP, use it. Chandra got a job from how he handled it. They liked him so much they gave him a contract.
Try again.
Try again.
I agree
Submitted by staff on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 1:49pm.
Chandra wold rip them a new one with this.
Only a fool - like a nephew or uncle or father in law would even try to use this garbage - what a massive backfire - they are already back peddling it after the PD article LOL.
I'm holding out for an Eric expose on this one - it's a hoot. He and I were up LATE last night.
If you think this is a great "30-second attack ad,"
Submitted by AmberCat on Wed, 04/05/2006 - 2:12pm.
then Betty Noe is toast. She's got about 200 worse things sitting in her resume. This is nothing. More pure defeatism. And frankly, the way the Republicans work, if there weren't some little thing they could distort and blow up, they'd make it up. Look at John Kerry and the swiftboat incident. We need to be more concerned about OUR 30-second attack ads that make it crystal-clear what a corrupt, do-nothing Betty is and how her non-actions have cost the state hundreds of millionsof dollars.
yale bulldog references aside....
subodh, you are missing the point.
if there is something about Marc Dann which disqualifies him to be AG other than the fact that he is a "divorce lawyer who handles fender benders", then cough it up, take responsibility for pointing it out, and campaign on it. it ain't negative campaigning if it is true and relevant to the job. fire away.
if not, then however impatient or bulldoggy you may be, it ain't gonna substitute for facts. please don't condescend to voters by calling your opponent unqualified, by saying it's "laughable" for him to oversee death penalty reviews, etc. etc.
you have a good case. make it. don't resort to this kind of campaigning unless you intend to stand on facts (which, as Russell has pointed out, may exist to support your claims) and argue beyond mere talking points.