Join 3,432 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Blackwell as NAMBLA expert?
October 21, 2006 9:06 AM   Subscribe

Unendorsed --an Ohio newspaper takes a rare if not unprecedented step--taking back their endorsement. ... The Monday debate (youtube) showed which one has a greater understanding of Christian conduct. ...
posted by amberglow (38 comments total)

 
and his campaign has also been reaching even higher: It's pushing new rumors that Strickland is gay and took a trip with his "boy toy" to Italy.
posted by amberglow at 9:09 AM on October 21, 2006


I would think it equally rare and unprecedented that the Findlay, Ohio Courier does anything that really warrants a FPP.

Local newspaper saying something negative about a GOP candidate is totally dog-bites-man.
posted by esquire at 9:18 AM on October 21, 2006


If I were Strickland, I'd be saying "Thanks but no thanks" for the less-than-charitable "endorsement" they've grudgingly given him by taking it away from Blackwell.
posted by briank at 9:23 AM on October 21, 2006


This guy has gone so crazy even the wacko right wingers are having a hard time supporting him, although it's not like they are going to vote for Strickland.
posted by caddis at 9:25 AM on October 21, 2006


I love this edited version of Blackwell's remarks [YouTube] which I found via Andrew Sullivan.
posted by LarryC at 9:30 AM on October 21, 2006 [1 favorite]


briank writes "If I were Strickland, I'd be saying 'Thanks but no thanks' for the less-than-charitable 'endorsement' they've grudgingly given him by taking it away from Blackwell."

Actually the Courier makes it pretty clear that they're not endorsing him either.
posted by clevershark at 9:32 AM on October 21, 2006


Personal attacks of dubious accuracy should have no place in a political campaign.

On which planet?
posted by three blind mice at 9:40 AM on October 21, 2006


It's an interesting window into a small city in a red state (the kind that seem to matter a lot in todays polictical scene).

Blackwell stoops to saying his democrat challenger supports NAMBLA but the newspaper falls short of endorsing his opponent because he as governor he would *gasp* collect taxes and spend money!
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 9:48 AM on October 21, 2006


now, if only all those Democrats could take their Lamont endorsement back...

;)
posted by matteo at 9:49 AM on October 21, 2006


At last we have found the Liberal Media! I was wondering where it was.
posted by srboisvert at 9:57 AM on October 21, 2006


Blackwell stoops to saying his democrat challenger supports NAMBLA but the newspaper falls short of endorsing his opponent because he as governor he would *gasp* collect taxes and spend money!

I fail to find this ridiculous.
posted by Bookhouse at 10:11 AM on October 21, 2006


I agree with slarty blartfast-- along with a view at the psychological drama that is the collapse of the Blackwell campaign, this article is a peek into the mindset of red staters. "Who is this liberal Democrat who wants to collect taxes and pay for programs geared at the meek! But, Blackwell mentioned NAMBLA one too many times, so... no endorsement."
posted by ibmcginty at 10:13 AM on October 21, 2006


I love how Strickland slips in "free love" into NAMBLA. That way he gains double points: Strickland is both against sex with children and free love, and definitely both at the same time, surely he is the man to lead Ohio into the future.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 10:25 AM on October 21, 2006


Blackwell stoops to saying his democrat challenger supports NAMBLA but the newspaper falls short of endorsing his opponent because he as governor he would *gasp* collect taxes and spend money!

I fail to find this ridiculous.


Exactly. Why in the world would a governor want to collect taxes and spend them on schools, hospitals, police, firefighters, roads and other government projects? That's like some pinko commie shit of bull I tell ya'.
posted by c13 at 10:57 AM on October 21, 2006


Yeah and whats this nonsense about taxes paying for voting booths and vote counting? Every vote should cost 500 dollars. That'll teach them. Commies.
posted by damn dirty ape at 11:07 AM on October 21, 2006


Wow! 500 dollars? Is that how much voting costs? I forget, because, as you know, ever since republicans came to power, we don't have to pay any taxes. Who needs them anyway? It's not like republicans spend any money, and even if they do, they're so good at that. Like these 300 billion for Iraq war -- we've destroyed their country AND we made these suckers pay for it themselves with their oil money.
posted by c13 at 11:20 AM on October 21, 2006


The stench of desperation hangs over the Blackwell campaign. Check out the comments here if you want to see how this is playing out on the ground among Ohio voters.
posted by Otis at 11:35 AM on October 21, 2006


now, if only all those Democrats could take their Lamont endorsement back...

What?
posted by delmoi at 12:08 PM on October 21, 2006


I think the conventional wisdom now is that Lamont is going to lose. He seems to be trailing Lieberman by quite a bit now.
posted by dhammond at 12:18 PM on October 21, 2006


dhammond writes "I think the conventional wisdom now is that Lamont is going to lose."

So endorsements should follow the prevailing winds and have nothing to do with the candidate's politics or character?
posted by clevershark at 12:41 PM on October 21, 2006


$ 10.7 million to get your clock thoroughly cleaned? say it ain't so Ned!
posted by matteo at 12:43 PM on October 21, 2006


clevershark, I never said that. Just elaborating on what matteo was alluding to.
posted by dhammond at 12:53 PM on October 21, 2006


Did I miss something? I didn't see anything in that editorial about taking back an endorsement. Just that they were disappointed in Blackwell's behavior and declined to endorse him. Withholding an endorsement isnt quite the same as taking on back.
posted by hwestiii at 1:00 PM on October 21, 2006


I didn't see anything in that editorial about taking back an endorsement.
Other than the title of the piece, you mean?
posted by Thorzdad at 1:11 PM on October 21, 2006


Not to mention this:
But while Blackwell may still get some of our individual votes, he's lost our endorsement, for whatever it's worth.
So yes, it looks like you missed something.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:17 PM on October 21, 2006


$ 10.7 million to get your clock thoroughly cleaned? say it ain't so Ned!

Who cares? If you had your way no one would ever challenge the omnipotent republicans who have absolute control over how information is decimated. They're about to lose and the only thing you can point to is the CT senate race, where the guy we're running against isn't even a republican. Please.

At least Joe Lieberman won't run around thinking he can just do whatever the hell he wants without answering for it.

And by the way, it looks like your big strong manly republicans are getting their Asses handed to them across the country. So much for your theory about how democrats need to demure and cower before the Randian might of the republicans!
posted by delmoi at 4:36 PM on October 21, 2006


It's funny that Republicans think a "pedophilia card" is in play for them, given that the only recent high-profile pedophilia involved a Republican.
posted by bardic at 4:45 PM on October 21, 2006


delmoi, did you just call matteo a "big strong manly republican"?

I mean, I've never met the guy, and he very well may be big, strong, and manly, but he sure ain't in the GOP. And if he wanted to, he's in the wrong country.
posted by bardic at 4:46 PM on October 21, 2006


delmoi, did you just call matteo a "big strong manly republican"?

I don't think he is a republican, of course, but he consistently makes comments indicating he views them as such, and says that the democrats should never ever attack them, or fight back, or whatever.
posted by delmoi at 5:22 PM on October 21, 2006


Well, I'm disappointed that Lamont is doing so poorly as well. But that pales in comparison to how much the GOP has managed to screw the pooch this past month.
posted by bardic at 5:24 PM on October 21, 2006


When it's outing an actually gay GOP congressman or staffer, this is the common reaction: ... And now, lefties, for the love of God, please stop this extreme nastiness. If a man is gay and in the closet, please leave him there until by his own choice he decides to reveal it. Much worse than the sin of homosexual sex - or hypocritically hiding such sex - is the sin of ruthless destruction of the lives of others. Attempts to "out" gay Republicans won't make us turn against them - it will, indeed, turn us more towards them in prayer ...

When it's actually lying about the sexuality of a Democratic congressman, we get this: FOX News Becomes Operative In Blackwell Smear Campaign
posted by amberglow at 12:46 AM on October 22, 2006


>.. the omnipotent republicans who have absolute control over how information is decimated.

That may not be the word you were actually looking for, but somehow it works.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:14 AM on October 22, 2006


When the FPP author states that the paper takes back their endorsement, that implies to me that they had previously endorsed Blackwell in this race and then retracted it based on his recent behavior. They may have been fans of Blackwell's current or prior service to the state, but I don't see anywhere that they actually ever gave him a real endorsement for this governor's race.

un-endorsed doesn't mean de-endorsed or dis-endorsed, which to my mind the text of the FPP implied.
posted by hwestiii at 5:29 AM on October 22, 2006


un-endorsed doesn't mean de-endorsed or dis-endorsed

Allow me to dis-de-un-ambiguate

un- not, opposite, take something away
de- taking something away, the opposite
dis- reverse , opposite
posted by srboisvert at 6:15 AM on October 22, 2006


Blackwell has plenty of other situations that should keep people from voitng for him, not the least of which being his several conflicts of interest in the last national election.

Unfortunately, as with the Foley situation, people are focused more on side issues than on governance. Blackwell has demonstrated his incapacity to govern. Strickland has yet to prove one way or the other.
posted by beelzbubba at 1:29 PM on October 22, 2006


another Ohio paper endorses him anyway: ...Unfortunately the first thing Blackwell will have to do if he is elected is to live down his campaign. He has attempted to falsely smear Strickland as a supporter of child sex. He has used surrogates to suggest that Strickland, married for 18 years, is gay. Such tactics are blots on Blackwell's character, and he owes the state of Ohio an apology. Strickland is an honorable man who has served the state with integrity.
We support the ideas on jobs and education that Blackwell brings to this election. We utterly denounce his campaign tactics.

posted by amberglow at 4:48 PM on October 22, 2006


You're gonna have to serve somebody...

It may be the devil, and it may be the Lord,
but your gonna have to serve somebody (yes indeed)
You have to serve somebody.
posted by ewkpates at 3:55 AM on October 23, 2006


Blackwell also had problem worker

As state treasurer, Blackwell hired a felon and kept him on the payroll after his office discovered the man had a long record of arrests. Under Blackwell, who was treasurer from March 1994 to January 1999, Michael A. Toomer received two pay increases, and left the treasurer's office in 2002, landing in prison for the next four years.

In May 2002, about three months after leaving the treasurer's office, Toomer was sentenced to four years in prison after pleading guilty to sexually abusing a girl, beginning in September 1994 when she was 7 and continuing until 2001.
posted by Otis at 8:05 AM on October 24, 2006


« Older Sound Exchange Can't Find Wall of Voodoo...  |  LyricsWiki... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments