*

*
Politics Extra
Enquirer reporters give the scoop on what your politicians are doing


Jessica Brown,
Hamilton County reporter


Jon Craig,
Enquirer statehouse bureau


Jane Prendergast,
Cincinnati City Hall reporter


Malia Rulon,
Enquirer Washington bureau


Carl Weiser,
Blog editor


Howard Wilkinson,
politics reporter

Powered by Blogger

Monday, April 17, 2006

Schmidt playing hard to get

More fallout from what Malia Rulon reported in her "Inside Washington" column today regarding Rep. Jean Schmidt and the death penalty:


The Queen City Lodge of the FOP's political action committee would probably like to endorse incumbent Jean Schmidt in the 2nd District GOP primary - after all, the police union endorsed her twice last year - but the congresswoman is making it hard for them to do.

What the FOP wants, president Kathy Harrell said Monday morning, is a straight answer from Schmidt on whether or not she supports the death penalty.

Schmidt said she did support the death penalty, in an endorsement questionaire that went out from the FOP, as did her primary oppponent, Bob McEwen. Then, the FOP found out that on a candidate questionnaire from the Anderson Township Republican Club, she proclaimed herself opposed to the death penalty.

Harrell said the candidates were brought in for interviews following the questionaire and "asked her directly three times.'' Now, Harrell said, the FOP's candidate screening committee wants her to explain the discrepancy.

Schmidt had a different take on it when asked by the Enquirer: "Do I personally dislike (the death penalty)? Yeah. Would I change the law? No.'' In a letter to FOP vice president Keith Fangman, Schmidt included a long list of circumstances under which the federal death penalty is applicable, and ended by saying the federal death penalty "has taken on new importance in the post-9/11 world. I support the federal death penalty as a needed tool in the war against terror.''

Harrell said the FOP still wants to endorse somebody; and is willing to give Schmidt one more shot at explaining.

Update, 2:30 p.m.

McEwen today issued a press release headlined "McEwen Has Always Supported the Death Penalty."

Highlights:

Cincinnati- Bob McEwen issued the following statement today after questions were raised about the record of his opponent’s support of the death penalty.

"Capital punishment is a necessary part of our criminal justice system. It is both a deterrent to committing crimes such as murder and it is also a fitting punishment for those who take a life. The death penalty should be a tool available to prosecutors for certain heinous crimes. It is my hope that, as new technology, such as DNA analysis, brings greater certainty in identifying and convicting the guilty, the interminable appeals process can be streamlined. I have always been forthright in my support of the death penalty with everyone who asks."

McEwen issued this statement today after Kathy Harrell, President of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 69, called a press conference to reveal that McEwen’s opponent, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, gave contradictory answers to the FOP and the Anderson Township Republican Club during her campaign last year. This inconsistency, the latest in a string of such statements from Schmidt, was reported in today’s Enquirer. Schmidt is already the subject of two Ohio Elections Commission probes into lying on her resume and falsely claiming endorsements from two Congressmen and a non-profit group.


37 Comments:

at 2:55 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

McEwen v. Schmidt: what an ugly, ugly choice of candidates. The GOP is rotten to the core, and these two are just the most visible local symbols of that decay.

 
at 4:14 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Louis 100%! This is a true choice of the better of 2 evils. My advice - if you are inclined to get a Democrat ballot on May 2; DON'T!! Get a Republican one and vote for McEwen! Anybody is better than Schmidt. Come November hopefully it will be a race between McEwen and a Democrat who stands practically no chance to win in this district. At least then we will not have Mean Jean and her flying monkeys to keep reading about!

 
at 4:53 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once agian we know exactly where Bob stands on an issue. What do we get from Jean. She plays both sides. She will lie, make false statements about anything. When caught, time and time agian she always says it is a mis-understanding or someone elses mistake. Wow EVERY SINGLE TIME we get excuses.

 
at 5:09 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can one claim we know where Bob stands, when Bob doesn't even seem to know where he lives?

 
at 5:09 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has anybody else heard that McEwen might be pulling out of the race?

 
at 5:22 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice try, Schmidt-heads. Typical political stunt.

McEwen isn't pulling out of anything - he's not even going to pull his foot out of Jean Schmidt's backside when he kicks it.

This is so cheap and so expected - the Schmidt people are DESPERATE to go on offense and it shows.

But why didn't she show up at her own news conference today? Because the media is itching to pin her down on her resume scandal, and she knows it.

 
at 5:30 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

someone should warn bob that he's not allowed to use the $237 left in campaign cash to post bail. i'd call him, but i have a HORRIBLE long distance plan...

 
at 5:35 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, I heard that he will be pulling out of the primary race once he beats Mean Jean and will head into the general election.

 
at 5:38 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can see the press release now Bob McEwen cuts and runs back to Virginia. Tom Brinkman, Chris Finney, and Duffy Beischel follow to beg for jobs getting coffee at his lobbying firm.

 
at 6:09 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

To you mean-spirited folks on this blog: Bob McEwen has no chance, no matter what nasty sniping you aim at Jean Schmidt. And after Jean adds to Bob's lengthy legacy of lost elections on May 2, he may not be allowed to return home to old Virginny. He may instead have to face felony charges relating to the unlawful votes he cast in Ohio elections over a several-year period. That's felony charges, folks; make no mistake about it. You potty-mouthed McEwenites who take your English lessons from that perverted local political pornographer who hates everybody in the whole world except Tom Brinkman are eventually gonna have to 'fess up--we all know you are not pro-McEwen; you're merely anti-Schmidt. And that Democrat-like approach to politics doesn't win elections. Ask the Democrat jerks who posted their sophomoric comments in the first and second places herein. They don't know how to win elections. And neither do you anti-Jean twits, as Jean will show each and every one of you in about 2 weeks.

 
at 6:15 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess that McEwen,Schmidt and the FOP are not christians>>> The ten commandments says not to Kill!!! Isn't that was the death sentence does? More born again hypocites in the GOP!!

 
at 6:20 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

McEwen and Schmidt born again hypocites>> The Bible says not to kill?? That is exactly what the DEATH SENTENCE does!!! The GOP is a butch of phony hypocites>>>They'll sleep with devil to get elected!!!

 
at 6:43 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

The seventh Commandment in the Ten Commandments is NOT "Thou shalt not kill." It is "Thou shalt not murder." Before you call another Christian a hypocrite for believing in capital punishment, I suggest you read your Bible. You might learn something.

 
at 7:35 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately for us neither Jean nor Bob's fathers knew when to pull out either.

 
at 9:56 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey "pull out specialist," your ugly comment is old, old, old. It went by the wayside about 1968 when anti-Vietnam war chanters were calling for a US pullout from Southeast Asia. Get some new material, or stay out of the fray.

 
at 11:35 PM, April 17, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jean Schmidt was for the death penalty before she was against it. Almost makes you miss John Kerry.

 
at 1:55 AM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

It went by the wayside about 1968 when anti-Vietnam war chanters were calling for a US pullout from Southeast Asia.

Boy, you said a mouthful. Aren't we all sick of these "peace" activists who want to stop the war? Let's keep it going over there - for decades if necessary! That's what we should have done in Vietnam! Keep sending more troops, no matter how many get blown up or burned up or who go nuts. They're all heroes!

"Stay the course" like President Bush says. He's the greatest president ever! Kill everybody he says to kill. After all, he's our Commander in Chief and he knows what he's doing, right, just like President Nixon did? Bush wouldn't have become president if he wasn't the best man for the job, right?

God bless us all - except for those "peace" activists preaching that "love thy neighbor" crap! Crucify 'em, like they did to that other weirdo preaching the same naive nonsense a couple hundred years ago!

 
at 7:56 AM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't forget: Thou Shalt Not Lie

Especially on your resume. I don't think the Bible says anything about owning property in Virginia.

If this recycled old residency story is the best you Schmidt-heads have got, you're dead.

Jean Schmidt is losing credibility as a conservative very fast.

1) She voted for the largest tax increase in Ohio history

2) She voted with Bob Taft to increase spending by billions of dollars, including millions for the failed Underground Railroad, then claimed there was noplace to cut the state budget, the excuse she used to raise taxes.

3) She is "morally conflicted" on the death penalty, to the point where she flip-flopped and FOP is going to pull their endorsement.

4) She doesn't support gun owners rights, as anyone can tell by checking her record in Columbus, despite her self-serving attempt to fool people by getting a concealed carry license in an election year.

5) She lied about endorsements

6) She lied about her education background

7) She's lying about McEwen voting to raise taxes in the same way she lied about Niehaus's record in 2004, deliberately trying to confuse voters.

8) She refuses to debate the issues, only agreeing to a single debate under enormous pressure from Channel 5.

9) Desperate, she's now slinging mud at McEwen, recycling last year's old residency story and trying in vain to convince people it's illegal to vote in Ohio if you own a home elsewhere (good luck finding a prosecutor for that).

10) She's ducking the media, and is only appearing in controlled, safe areas like the Cincinnati Enquirer editorial board, the same paper that went soft on her resume story by printing the lie from her staff that she "did the work" when in reality we all know she's at least a semester or two away from any degree.

Sorry Schmidt-heads, you can try to convince idiot bloggers that McEwen's residency is the "issue" but voters are smarter than that.

Your candidate is an embarrassment on so many levels.

 
at 8:55 AM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Joe Deters" is outright lying when he claims that Congresswoman Jean Schmidt does not support gun owners rights. She has voted with the NRA and the Buckeye Firearms Association every time. As to the anti gun votes cited by the dishonest, here is a full report:

June 19, 2003 – Rep. Schmidt cast a vote to reject the Senate’s horribly amended version of House Bill 12, a bill she had co-sponsored. Schmidt’s vote (along with the rest of the pro-gun majority) meant that she refused to agree with the Senate’s horrible amendments (including the infamous “carjacker protection” provision, which would have mandated that if a minor was present in the vehicle, a license-holder would be forced to lock up their firearm, rendering it unavailable in an emergency). This procedural vote ensured that the bill would go to a conference committee, where “carjacker protection” was eventually removed before Schmidt and others voted to make concealed carry law in Ohio.


January 6, 2004 – Rep. Schmidt cast a procedural vote on the house floor to “unaccept” a Conference Committee report on House Bill 12. This vote was necessary to rescue the bill from a gubernatorial veto. Without Schmidt's (and the rest of the pro-gun majority's) vote, House Bill 12 would not have become law, and Ohio would not have become a concealed carry state at that time.


Nice try with your lies. Who fed them to you? Paul Hackett?
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3079

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2864

 
at 9:04 AM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, she is an embarassment with a 20 point lead. Best of Luck Uzbek-Bob.

 
at 10:03 AM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Attention self-proclaimed liberal Bible scholars:

I guess you haven't read the Bible before because God has "punished" (ie Death Penalty) many many times throughout history. Try for instance Jericho, the Sodomites, and the tribes dwelling in the Promised Land before God called his people there. All of these people met the judgement of God by the hands of men. I will say it again, God commanded men to slay men for their sin. You are correct when you say God forbids murder.

If you think maybe God has become a Progressive try looking up Isaiah chapter 13 which mentions future judgement.

 
at 11:01 AM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boy, there are quite a few Democrats in this blog, McEwenites, too (sometimes it's hard to tell the difference since both types use gutter language and ad hominem attacks so freely).

It's too bad the blogmaster hasn't fixed the sign-in problem and so many of us arguing folks have to sign in as "anonymous." I can't respond to anyone in particular. But here goes anyhow.

To the sarcastic anti-war "progressive" I would say as a Vietnam Veteran myself that folks like you, even the few who were well-meaning in their ignorance, laid the basis for the only defeat in US history. Militarily, we won every battle. Even the infamous 1968 Tet Offensive was a tremendous disaster militarily for Hanoi and the Viet Cong. But folks like you helped to parlay Tet into a huge political victory for the Communist enemy, and that political setback led eventually to our shameful abandonment of the South Vietnamese.

Now you same peacenik-types are decrying the War on Terror. The difference here is that most Americans understand who we're fighting and why, even if you don't or won't. Our volunteer military is the best in the world, and we'll continue to fight the islamo-fascists overseas--pay attention now, don't miss this, this is important--so that we don't have to fight them in Cincinnati, so that we don't have to clean up the radioactive glass where our major cities used to be, so that they don't destroy the best or second-best ally we have, Israel.

There's much more to be said, and I know you don't want to hear it. But let's wind up with this:

John Stuart Mill, the 19th century British philosopher wrote--
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

 
at 12:12 PM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, the Seventh Commandment according to many sources is "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery." According to the Catholic Church it is "Thou Shalt Not Steal." The King James Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is the Fifth Commandment. According to George Bush, there is a standard Ten Commandment, but that is considered ridiculous by any student of theology. My point being, anyone can say it's "Thou Shalt Not Murder," or "Thou Shalt Not Kill," and probably be correct. But since Schmidt's own church

One simple fact is either way, Schmidt is changing her answer to suit the political wind. Schmidt is a Roman Catholic, so one would think she would subscribe to the "You Shall Not Kill" interpretation. Her religion is relevant since the Catholic Church made it relevant in 2004 when some bishops shot their mouths off about not offering communion to John Kerry because of his position on abortion. It is also relevant since Schmidt routinely refers to her faith in speeches and commercials and uses it for political purposes. I wonder, will her priest deny her communion this Sunday since she's telling cops she's pro-killing? The American Catholic Church uses the New American Bible which says "You Shall Not Kill" (Ex. 20:13).

 
at 12:17 PM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 10:03.

"Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." (Romans, 12:19)

God may judge. God may punish. God may take a life. Mere humans do not get to make that decision.

 
at 12:55 PM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anon @ 11:01am 4-18-06: I find your post both amusing and scary; scary in that I cannot believe people actually think the way you do. To state or imply that the Vietnam war was a good thing or that we left way too early is just plain ridiculous. What bad things did we really prevent from happening by being in Vietnam? 5 or 6 years after we left (after just hitting our head against a brick wall for years)communism imploded all by itself. And it cracks me up when you suggest our big adventure in Iraq is preventing us from fighting terrorism here in Cincinnati. Do you really think the debacle in Iraq will prevent 2, 4, 19 or whatever number of nut jobs strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up a NY subway or an LA building? Gee-it did not prevent those kind of nut cases bombing buses in London twice (7-10 days apart) or blowing up hotels in Indonesia where another one of our best allies (Australia) vacation. So you think if we were not occupying Iraq all those nut jobs over there would be on a boat invading America? And everyone posting comments you do not like here are not Democrats. I'm a Republican who is sick of this administration and just about everything they have done. Israel is not our best ally; they have not picked up arms in our fights in the middle east because the whole area would go nuts and get involved. You are probably one that says if we left Iraq we would be cutting and running. BS! Why the defeatist stance? We kicked their butt and got rid of a menance! We are just hitting our head against a brick wall there. Even our own Generals state that when we kill one of the bad guys we create three more. How do we define victory? We do not even know who the enemy is until they blow us up. They do not wear uniforms with a big I for insurgent on themselves. And this administration has been hanging their hat on the big progress there because they had elections. They had elections with 150K troops on hand and bringing the country to a standstill. Big Deal. What have these elections brought - zero. Still no functioning government, just the same old crap where the 3 groups just bicker at each other. They want their freedom let them fight for it and earn it. We need to cut the head off of terrorism, not occupy a country where the nut cases have 150K of our troops there with bulls eyes on their backs. Hope is not a strategy, being pragmatic and picking and chosing our fights where we can really make an impact is! God Bless the USA!!!

 
at 2:54 PM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe,

Five will get me ten that you are not a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution, that is, you view it as a "living document" that needs to be changed as mankind "progresses." Heaven knows you must have that kind of liberal attitude if you think that the Christian faith delivered once for all time to the saints should change as mankind "progresses." For example, the condemnation of homosexual behavior as sin (just like bestiality, adultery, etc.) should be discarded because the whole concept of sin is "outdated." I suspect this is an example of your "progressive," that is, liberal, attitude toward the moral absolutes of the Bible. I feel sorry for moral relativists like you and your liberal friends. You have no idea what's truly right or what's truly wrong, even tho you absolutely think you do. It depends, you say, since human understanding of biblical truth "evolves" as mankind "progresses." So you condemn things that should be praised and praise things that should be condemned; you oppose things that should be encouraged and encourage things that should be opposed. God is not the author of such confusion. You won't, of course, but I urge you to read First and Second Timothy for an excellent descripton of your attitudes and thoughts and those of your fellow relativists. God saw you folks coming from before the foundations of the world, and like I said before, I feel sorry for you and every single person who thinks like you do.

 
at 3:19 PM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

A couple of points to be made. Frist yes I do think that fighting the terorist overseas is the right thing to do. I will agree that we are in a tough spot in Iraq. But don't confuse that with other efforts to fight around the world. If we don't go after the terroist and hit them where they live and train they will be more able to carry out attacks on the US.
Second I am tired of people who vote or talk one issue.(abortion, Death Penalty, Gun rights, etc) There are arguements for both sides. I love people on both sides saying the bible says this and that. Guess what if it was not a tough issue then we would have figured it out 100% one way. I actually don't know too many people who believe in all of the same things. If you agreee with someone on 95% of things but lets say disagree on abortion. Does that make the other person bad or wrong on everything. Do you really think voting for somone because of one item is best. By the way the courts will decide on Abortion.
This gets me to Collin, A post gave around 10 things that Jean has either lied on, changed her mind, or mis-representer. And the only thing you came back with is gun control. Which by the way it sounds like jean continues to vote or say things she thinks will get her votes. I mean do you really think that because Jean went through a gun course that means anything. That is one big political stunt to once again get votes. Give me a break. I am sure Jean is really carrying a gun. And oh yea by the way there are Republicans out there who think that all of these guns killing our kids on the street is a bad thing.

 
at 3:50 PM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anon at 2:54pm - I could care less if you feel sorry for me or anyone else that thinks like me. Bottom line - I will interpret the bible and practice my religion (Roman Catholic) as I see fit. I will not push my personal beliefs and interpretations on others. I will treat all others fairly and will not go out of my way to pass laws that isolate (gays) or tell others what to do (abortion). In essence I do not pass judgement on others; that is Gods job and frankly only his decisions matter. You appear to be full of hate and just want to push your beliefs and judgements on others just like W and his fellow knuckleheads!

 
at 4:12 PM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Our friend at 3:19 obviously doesn't get it. I responded with information that I, in an area leadership positiont with Buckeye Firearms Association, knew to be false. I was being specific to a certain lie. Buckeye Firearms Association and NRA made our decisions based upon a long history of service to gun owners. Nice try.

 
at 5:32 PM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

killing fetuses = no
killing people = ok

huh?

 
at 8:07 PM, April 18, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Collin:

My point exactly. You came back with one tired point about gun control. Out of about 10 points that were made about Jean. Lets see that means you have no anwser for the rest. Nice try, you have made my point for me.

One issue to stand on. Once again you should never stand for a canidate based on one issue but there stand on everything as a whole. Are you obsessed by guns?? You would not have any money to be made in guns now would you?? And by the way Bob is for the constitution, and the right to bear arms also.

 
at 12:19 AM, April 19, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe,

Hatred has a place in my life, for sure. I hate cruelty, abortion, sin, war, tyranny and cooked spinach. But there's no place in my life for the kind of hatred you ascribe to me. You simply don't understand.

Believers who have committed their lives to God thru faith and trust in Christ are no longer under the Law, according to St. Paul. Instead, we are under Grace. So the Old Testament admonitions to stone adulterers or to sacrifice innocent lambs before an altar don't apply to believers, and they certainly are NOT moral absolutes. Absolute truths or moral absolutes are unchanged and unchanging, eternal and absolute, because they are from God Who is Himself unchanged and unchanging, eternal and absolute. Hebrews 13:8 says it best: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever." And Christ Himself said (Mark 13:31), "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." That's because they are absolute and eternal. The Ten Commandments are an example. So is every word that came from the mouth of the Savior. So in this life sinful humans do not break the law of God; the law of God breaks us. We are accountable to Him; He is not accountable to us. We must come to Him on His terms; He will not accept us on any other terms. So relativists who say the situation or the context determines morality are trying to prop a ladder against a non-existent wall.
And our relativistic society that essentially says your truth is not necessarily the same as my truth, and therefore anything goes, and I'm okay, you're okay, etc. is a presciption for chaos. And guess what we've got right now? Chaos-- social, spiritual, sexual, psychological, emotional, familial. The politically correct (moral relativist) types are running the asylum, and believers who stand firm on the rock of God's unchanging absolute truths are starting to stick out like sore thumbs. So be it. In Heaven a million years from now, it won't matter.

We're a little off the subject of Schmidt vs. McEwen, but I wanted to try to give you a brief but sincere answer to what was essentially a question from you.

 
at 2:20 AM, April 19, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would say as a Vietnam Veteran myself that folks like you, even the few who were well-meaning in their ignorance, laid the basis for the only defeat in US history.

Korea slip your mind?

 
at 9:30 AM, April 19, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

My Bible says the righth commandment is "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Shame on Jean Schmidt for lieing,numerous times on numerous issues.

 
at 10:37 AM, April 19, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 4/19/2006 12:19 AM, we should be glad that morality is moving forward from the days of the apostles. I am glad that most of us wouldn't send slaves back to their masters (see Philemon) to create some kind of object lesson.

 
at 10:48 AM, April 19, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

Execution is prevention. Once an evil killer is executed, they cannot kill an innocent child, law enforcement officer, or any other innocent human being.

There is a bid difference between innocent human life and evil that destroys life.

 
at 1:57 PM, April 19, 2006 Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 2:20am anonymous, no, I have not forgotten "The Forgotten War," as some have called the Korean War.
As you might learn if you did a little more reading, we didn't lose the Korean War, in part because it's never been declared as ended, but mainly because it was and is a stalemate. We were driven out of Vietnam. We still have troops in Korea. These kinds of details will help you understand why I didn't claim that we lost the Korean War, 'cause we didn't, pure and simple.

 
Post a Comment*

* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.

By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site.

<< Home


Blogs
Jim Borgman
Today at the Forum
Paul Daugherty
Politics Extra
N. Ky. Politics
Pop culture review
Cincytainment
Who's News
Television
Roller Derby Diva
Art
CinStages Buzz....
The Foodie Report
cincyMOMS
Classical music
John Fay's Reds Insider
Bengals
High school sports
NCAA
UC Sports
CiN Weekly staff
Soundcheck