Politics Extra: The one, the only Schmidt-Wulsin debate!

Friday, October 13, 2006

The one, the only Schmidt-Wulsin debate!

Democratic challenger Victoria Wulsin would like to debate Republican incumbent Jean Schmidt every day between now and Nov. 7 in every corner of the seven-county 2nd Congressional District, but it’s not going to happen.

What will likely be the one and only debate between the two was taped Friday morning at the WKRC-TV (channel 12) studios and will air Sunday morning at 11 a.m.

After the two candidates finished their taping their half-hour 12 Newsmakers appearance, moderated by WKRC reporter Dan Hurley, Schmidt said she would not go head-to-head with Wulsin again.

“I’m not going to give her another platform to distort my record and call me names,’’ said Schmidt.

But, during the half-hour program, there was no name-calling from either side – just a non-confrontational discussion of a wide range of issues – from Iraq to taxes to sex scandal roiling on Capitol Hill.

Wulsin, an Indian Hill physician who has called for seven debates – one each in al of the southern Ohio district’s counties – said she has no intention of doing any name-calling.

“My husband, who is a psychiatrist, would probably say she is projecting,’’ Wulsin said when told Schmidt had refused any more debates. “He would probably say she is saying that because she wants to attack me.’’

28 Comments:

at 9:08 AM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

SCHMIDT: “I’m not going to give her another platform to distort my record and call me names,’’ said Schmidt.

But, during the half-hour program, there was no name-calling from either sid...

--------------

With the record of gaffs and incompetence already held by Ms. Schmidt, there's no wonder why she refuses to debate her opponent.

Schmidt is a total embarrassment to the 2nd District of Ohio.

at 9:47 AM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

I think the real reason Jeanne wants to avoid debates is the intellectual factor. Remember Schmidt's one degree is lightweight and she was caught claiming a second degree that she did not have. I wouldn't want to debate someone with Wulsin's CT either.

at 10:03 AM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

This election has very little to do with who is incompetent and who is not...

It has very little to do with who attacks who and who does not...

It has everything to do with the future direction of our country.

There is so much more at stake here than politics. This is a time in America where we will define this nation for the next several generations. The global and economic challenges which will be faced by the next US House of Representatives will seem (to many people), like it might be impossible to find realistic solutions... This is why it is so incredibly important to choose candidates carefully, to forget about partisan politics and to elect a Congress that will put aside it's own selfish interests and fight for everything that is right in our society and in the world.

MAY THE BEST CANDIDATE WIN.

And when you do, if you don't truly fight for the things that make this country great, I can personally guarantee that there is somebody out there who will make sure that the people that I care about are aware of it.

Jim Parker
Former Candidate for US Congress
Southern Ohio - 2nd District - 2005 & 2006

at 12:46 PM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Schmidt is a coward and she's trying to cut and run.

at 12:52 PM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

The only Second District people who are embarrassed by Congresswoman Jean Schmidt are those who can not beat her in an election, including Tom Brinkman, Patrick DeWine, Bob McEwen, Paul Hackett, Bob McEwen (again) and very soon, Victoria Wulsin. The 93-lb marathon runner from Loveland is one tough cookie in a footrace or in an election race. Her opponents call her "mean," because all they can do is stand on the sidelines and hurl invective at her as she leaves them behind to choke on her dust. When she clobbers Wulsin on November 7th, it will be the FOURTH election victory she's engineered in the past 21 months. Not only is she NOT an embarrassment to me and all her many other loyal supporters and volunteer workers, but she is an inspiration and a strong source of pride for us. She will continue to represent the Second District well in the next Congress.

at 4:03 PM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

jim parker needs a day job.

you talk too much.

at 8:29 PM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

Loser Jim needs to go back to being husband Jim.

Why does loser jim feel that a former anything grants credibility ?

5,500 votes isn't even a good rock concert !

Loser jim should take his singing down the Pike !

We've had enough, loser jim, of your lying !

You promissed us you would no longer blog !

Liar, Liar schmidt'y Pants on Fire !

at 8:54 PM, October 14, 2006

Anonymous said...

TNP said... When she clobbers Wulsin on November 7th, it will be the FOURTH election victory she's engineered in the past 21 months

TNP, you really need to stop living in September. September was over 14 days ago. This is October! Since you are living in September, I must inform you of the happenings that are taking place in October. Jean Schmidt is not leading in the polls; she lost her lead when September ended. Her short and embarrassing time in congress is almost over, just in time for her to enroll at UC to finish that teaching degree. You know the one that she listed on her resume for over a decade that she never earned. Jean can even take classes at the Clermont Location. TNP, you really need to wake up and stay current with events that are taking place in October.

at 12:25 AM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

Cowards cut and run, right Mean Jean?

at 9:25 AM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

Or did she...

Hackett vs. Schmidt
Tuesday, 23 August 2005
Election Day.

Election Day was a tense event for both candidates and their supporters. Turnout reached 25%, considered respectable for a special election. There were some changes in voting locations in Clermont County and a reduction in precincts in Hamilton County, the most populous county in the 2nd. There were few if any major incidents reported by those attempting to vote. There were reports of Jean Schmidt campaigning within the 100-foot perimeter candidates must recognize around the precincts. Until mid evening, this encroachment charge was the only event to remotely qualify as an election irregularity.

The humidity crisis.

Then it happened: the “humidity” crisis. For pure drama, it could not have occurred at a more dramatic point in the vote tabulation. Of Clermont County’s 191 precincts, 100 had been counted. Then the Board of Elections announced that excessive humidity had caused ballots to swell, making them difficult to count. As a result, there would be a delay in the count. At this point, the election was dead even statistically, at 50% for each candidate. The 91 precincts in Clermont represented about 12% of the remaining vote. When the crisis was resolved, the 50-50% tie changed into a 52% to 48% victory for Schmidt.

Unanswered questions about the humidity crisis.

While the humidity crisis delayed vote counting at a key time, local media barely covered the event. Board of Election officials stated that ballots had acquired sufficient humidity in 91 out of 191 precincts to require a delay in the vote count. They pointed out that their optical scan tabulator was slowed by the humidity of the ballots. Few details were offered on that process. The Cincinnati Post and all the major television outlets, save one, the Enquirer, were silent on the issue. Ironically, the only coverage of the humidity issue besides the Enquirer and a local television station was in National Review Online, the traditional conservative magazine’s online service which mentioned the humidity.
The NBC affiliate, Channel 5, said, “The drama of a close race lasted late into the night. Schmidt led by less than one percent with 88 % of the precincts in. But she must have felt secure in knowing that the only uncounted precincts were in Clermont County, her home.” (Updated 1:13 p.m. EDT, August 3, 2005). We hear about “the drama of a close race” lasting into the night, but nothing about what caused the drama. The cause was the ballots taking on humidity. MSNBC, fed by the Cincinnati affiliate, treated the climax of the race like a sporting event: “With the home-field advantage, Schmidt dominated 58 % to 42 % in Clermont (16,162 votes to 11,689) and Warren counties (7,556 votes to 5,420).” There was no mention of the sudden stoppage of vote tabulation when the race was at 50-50% at 10:40 pm.

Only Howard Wilkinson of the Enquirer implied questions. He began his August 2, 2005, analysis by saying, “The apparent win by Republican Jean Schmidt in Tuesday’s 2nd Congressional District election was in no way shocking, but the fact that Democrat Paul Hackett made it a very close election is nothing short of astounding.” Given the announcement of the final count by the time this was written, the use of “apparent win” might lead some to think Mr. Wilkinson has paid attention to the history of the 2004 Presidential election in Southwestern Ohio.

Wilkinson followed up on August 4, 2005, with an article headlined “ Clermont: Humid heat hurt count, not plotting.” He opened with, “Humidity held an edge over conspiracy in explaining a glitch in counting Tuesday night’s 2nd Congressional District returns in Clermont County.” He reported questions that had been raised on political blogs. He also spoke to Clermont Board of Elections official and Democrat Kathy Jones, who said that the humidity “simply slowed the process of running the ballots through the readers.” Senior Ohio Democratic official Michael Culp was quoted as saying, “It was apparently just a matter of paper ballots getting damp in the humidity.” The door was left slightly ajar when he reminded readers that Schmidt’s primary victory in Clermont County of 705 votes had multiplied overnight by 380% to a “corrected” 2,667 vote Clermont margin.
The Board of Elections explained the problem to the Associated Press on election night: “Tim Rudd says the ballots pick up moisture when it gets hot, making it tougher for the optical scan machines to sort and count.”

Questions not asked about the vote count stoppage.

The sudden stoppage of vote tabulation in Clermont was reminiscent of nearby Warren County’s Board of Elections citizen-media lockout during vote counting in 2004, which county officials claimed to be the result of a Homeland Security alert. There was no alert.
Was humidity the reason the optical scanning machine count stopped in Clermont, or was there some “intelligent design?” Humidity can impact the ability of optical scan counting machines to process paper ballots. It is not frequently reported and there are clear instructions providing easy remedies (e.g. air condition polling and tabulation facilities). The state of Louisiana made its 2003 RFP for voting machines contingent on tolerating a 98% humidity rate, for example. Air conditioning is reported to be widely available in Clermont County, as are dehumidifiers.

Why were 91 precincts impacted while 100 others were not in the same County?

Information about the locations of the humidity-impacted districts is unavailable. Was each of the 91 precincts without air conditioning? That would be a 48% rate of precincts exposed to conditions that the Board had to know could create problems. For them to announce problems with ballots due to humidity after the fact is remarkable. Certainly, they knew that humidity could be an issue. Just days before the special election there were extensive reports of a serious heat and humidity wave in the Cincinnati area. The regions largest newspaper, The Cincinnati Enquirer had been talking about the heat and humidity days before the election. Surely humidity on Election Day should have been taken into account.

Was there a one-to-one match between precincts with “humidified” ballots and precincts without air conditioning?

If so, why were nearly half of the precincts exposed to humidification? And if this is not so, if some of the 91 precincts with ballot problems due to humidity had air conditioning and some did not, how does the Board explain humidity problems in precincts with air conditioning?

Was Clermont the only part of the 2nd District that was affected by humidity that day and if so, why?

Clermont used optical scan paper ballots. Five other counties used punch card paper ballots, which have a similar or greater vulnerability to expansion or distortion due to humidity. There were no reports of problems in those five counties related to humidity. What is the critical variable that makes Clermont ballots vulnerable to distortion due to excessive moisture? Were precincts all air conditioned in the five counties that used punch card paper ballots? Was there something like an intense thermal inversion going on above the 91 precincts in Clermont County?

Why did the Board of Elections allow precincts to operate that lacked sufficient air conditioning to prevent humidity?

These questions need to be answered given the prior questions raised and documented about Clermont. The Board of Elections operates all year round. There is sufficient time to study manuals, attend vendor-sponsored retreats, and talk to nearby officials. Nearly half of the Clermont precincts had humidified ballots. A failure rate of nearly 50% is totally unacceptable performance for an election and offers the most unflattering commentary on those who are supposed to run it efficiently.

And it certainly bears mentioning, that Clermont County is the place that Green Party Recount volunteers observed stickers on optiscan ballots. Hey Howard, maybe you should visit the Clermont BoE and ask to see the Schmidt Hackett ballots and not just take the word of people who have a motive to obfuscate.

at 9:40 AM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

After many repeated observations, I've come to the conclusion that our bold blogger just isn't quite right in the head!

at 10:52 AM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

I just looked at Jim Parker's webpage.

Whoever said he needs to get a day job should notice that the guy finished his 2nd Master's Degree when he was 23 years old. He paid his own way though school. He has an MBA and a Master's of Health Administration. Those are not liberal degrees.

He knocked on a couple thousand doors during the last primary election and didn't spend any money. The guy drove thousands of miles and talked with thousands of people in every corner of the 2nd district. Almost 10 times as many people voted for him the second time around.

He worked with Alheimer's patients. He's held the hand of patients who were dying from cancer. He loves healthcare! And he knows how healthcare works. He has been the Assistant Administrator of 2 hospitals for more than 10 years.

So whoever said that he should find a day job needs to apologize. They either obviously don't know Jim Parker or they are just plain FULL OF SCHMIDT!

Jim Parked knocked on my door during his last campaign and he is an impreesive and genuinely concerned young man. He is going to makea difference in the lives of millions of people in his life, just like he said during his campaign.

So If somebody like Jim Parker is going to vote for Victoria Wulsin, then so am I and so should you!

at 3:19 PM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, 8:54pm, 10/14, you're right and you're wrong, both. When Congresswoman Jean Schmidt beats Victoria Wells (or Wulsin or whatever her name is this week) on November 7, it won't be Congresswoman Jean Schmidt's fourth election victory in 21 months. It will, however, be her fourth election victory in 17 months. The first was June 14, 2005. That means she's even tougher than I thought, so tough, in fact, that she can take your invective in stride and not miss a step as she heads back to DC to begin her first full term in the House.

And Jeff, once again I'm so sorry Congresswoman Jean Schmidt has been mean to you. She should give some consideration to treating a gentle soul like you with greater care and tenderness so that your feelings don't get hurt. BTW, she has never and will never "cut and run," and I'm GLAD she said what she said about that totally idiotic and corrupt (can you say "Abscam"?) Murtha. I'm rooting for Diana Irey to upset ol' Jack in his Pennsylvania district on November 7.

at 3:23 PM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

I have to say that I watched Newsmakers today and I was rather underwhelmed by Wulsin. Schmidt was her usual empty-headed, crammed-some-talking-points self, but I don't think Vic has the killer instinct needed to triumph over Mean Jean.

I rather enjoyed the part where Hurl(GOP talking points)ey put up Schmidt's first quote and she talked about protecting sex offenders and eminent domain. He asked her about Feisel and Foley, and she wanted to come back and talk about eminent domain.

at 4:08 PM, October 15, 2006

thirstycoon said...

I checked out Wulsin's website, and she does call Congresswoman Schmidt names over and over again. I also watched the discussion on Channel 12 today. Victoria Wulsin is a comic figure, and it is no wonder Jean Schmidt doesn't want to take her time to debate her. I guess Wulsin has to believe that the middle class is anyone making up to a million dollars a year so that se can lay claim to being middle class.

at 4:13 PM, October 15, 2006

thirstycoon said...

If you check out Wulsin's website, you will discover, as I did, that she calls Congresswoman Schmidt names over and over again. I watched them both on Channel 12 today and was surprised to see that the doctor was not very articulate. She is a comic figure. I don't know that I would want to debate her. Who can take seriuously someone who thinks that the middle class is anyone making up to a million dollars a year? Perhaps she needs to believe that so that she can call herself middle class.

at 5:46 PM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

CRK, do you even know what you are saying? Vic Wulsin made all of $3,000 last year. Her husband is a UC prof and made around 80K. That isn't exactly poor but it is a hell of a long way from being a millionaire.

at 7:21 PM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

I think people need to be vigilant and NOT respond to the quesions raised above about Hackett-Schmidt. That would be telling - you might have to admit that (a) the district lost a chance at a real representative, you know one who could think for himself and not copy the speeches of others and (b) you might have to admit that elections in Ohio are pure fantasy, a manufcatured event.

Why were the only ballots with humidity problems, the last ballots counted, why were they consecutive precincts, why didn't they get an objective third party into Cleremont to look at this? Oh, I'll tell you why: because those in power or aspiring to power don't wnt to rock the boat and find that it's already sunk.

Why didn't the press ask these questions after election day. Same reason. If there's no real democracy in Ohio then why even have elections.

I say, just deliver the results after the nominations for both primaries and general elections. That would at least be believable. The joke democracy that Blackwell propogates at the behest of whomever is clear for all to see; except those who can't tolerate truth and those not willing to fight for theier democratic rights.

at 8:25 PM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

If Jean won't debate then the Democrats just need to keep knocking on Republican's doors. Do that right up until bedtime the night before election.

Knock on doors in the rain. Knock on doors in the snow. The colder, the better. Talk to people at every opportunity. Talk with them after church. Talk with them at their homes. Talk with them so much that they are eventually the ones who are talking about you and everything that you have to offer. Go to the corners of the district that everybody else ignores. And if you do that enough, you will be successful.

America wants a Washington that it can relate to. Not a bunch of crooks and cronies.

Believe me, that is the only way to win the 2nd District of Southern Ohio. Now is a time that America must put aside it's differences and come together. These are dangerous times in the history of the world if we do not!

Jim Parker

A Man Who Truly Cares About the Children and Families of Southern Ohio...

at 9:23 PM, October 15, 2006

Anonymous said...

So I guess Schmidt backers prefer Stay and Die.

Can I ask how many of your children are serving in Iraq?

Confessions of a 'Defeatocrat'

By John P. Murtha
Sunday, October 15, 2006; B01

The Republicans are running scared. In the White House, on Capitol Hill and on the campaign trail, they're worried about losing control of Congress. And so the administration and the GOP have launched a desperate assault on Democrats and our position on the war in Iraq. Defeatists, they call us, and appeasers and -- oh so cleverly -- "Defeatocrats."

Vice President Cheney has accused Democrats of "self-defeating pessimism." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has faulted us for believing that "vicious extremists can be appeased." The White House calls Democrats the party of "cut and run."

It's all baseless name-calling, and it's all wrong. Unless, of course, being a Defeatocrat means taking a good hard look at the administration's Iraq policy and determining that it's a failure.

In that case, count me in. Because Democrats recognize that we're headed for a far greater disaster in Iraq if we don't change course -- and soon. This is not defeatism. This is realism.

Our troops who are putting their lives on the line deserve a plan that matches our military prowess with diplomatic and political skill. They deserve a clear and achievable mission and they deserve to know precisely what it will take to accomplish it. They deserve answers, not spin.

Our military has done all it can do in Iraq, and the Iraqis want their occupation to end. I support bringing our troops home at the earliest practicable date, at a rate that will keep those remaining there safe on the ground. It's time that the White House and the GOP start working with Democrats in Congress to come up with a reasonable timetable for withdrawal and for handing the Iraqi government over to the Iraqis.

The administration's use of Rovian catchphrases is nothing but propaganda designed to stifle the loyal opposition. We Democrats are determined to restore our nation's military strength, refocus on the real terrorist threat, bolster security safeguards at home and reestablish the credible standing we once had in the world. That is not defeatist. It is a call to formulate and execute a winning game plan for the War on Terror.

Most Democrats voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq. Regrettably, I was not one of them. Since entering Congress in 1974, I have always supported the president on issues of war. But in this case, I made a mistake -- and unlike certain members of the administration, I'm willing to say so. If I had known in October 2002 what I know now, I would never have voted for the resolution.

Some of my Democratic colleagues questioned whether Iraq posed an immediate threat to our national security; some were not convinced that Iraq was accelerating the development of nuclear weapons and had an active chemical and biological weapons program; and almost all believed that Iraq was not involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They turned out to be right on all three counts. Nevertheless, since our forces deployed to Iraq, Democratic support for the troops has never wavered.

In the past nine months alone, $962 billion has been appropriated for the Defense Department, $190 billion for the war effort. A vast majority of Democrats voted for the funding. Democrats also identified shortfalls in body armor, armored vehicles and electronic jammers to defeat roadside bombs. Democrats uncovered problems with the military readiness of our ground forces in the United States and fought for measures to restore it. That's hardly defeatist.

When U.S. forces first entered Baghdad, the Iraqi people cheered as the statue of Saddam Hussein was torn from its pedestal. Forty-two months and $400 billion later, we are caught in a civil war in which 61 percent of Iraqis think killing Americans is justified and the Iraqi people butcher one another at an alarming rate. We are considered occupiers. The longer we stay, the harder it becomes for the Iraqis to find their own destiny.

The administration's "stay-the-course" strategy is not a plan for victory. It's not even a plan. All we have is a new military blueprint to keep 140,000 troops in Iraq through 2010.

We are seeing an astonishing and unprecedented parade of retired U.S. generals calling for a new direction in Iraq. These are voices of bravery, experience, conscience and loyalty. These are men who have been taught to look coldly and objectively at the facts of bloodshed. Can they all be wrong? How about the 15 intelligence agencies that recently offered the opinion that this war has not made us safer? Are they all defeatists? Are they to be ignored?

Was Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, former Army chief of staff, a defeatist when he said that it would take several hundred thousand troops to prevail in Iraq? His recommendation was ignored. Or what about Gen. Jay M. Garner, our first administrator in Iraq, who recommended that the Iraqi army be kept intact and used to stabilize the country? His recommendations were ignored. The Iraqi army was disbanded and the former military took their munitions and went off to form the core of the insurgency. Was former secretary of state Colin L. Powell defeatist when he warned: "If you break it, you own it"? Was Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower a defeatist when he ran for president in 1952 to change the course of Democrat Harry S. Truman's administration in Korea?

Will the White House toss the same tired insults at Sen. John W. Warner (Va.), the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has voiced concern over the situation in Iraq? Or at former secretary of state James A. Baker III when the commission he is co-chairing delivers its report on reassessing our options in Iraq?

This administration's insistence on a "go-it-alone, stay-the-course" policy in the face of objections from a majority of Americans and Iraqis and most world public opinion, and in the face of a deteriorating situation, defies logic.

The United States is about to begin its fifth year of occupation and fighting in Iraq. That makes this war longer than U.S. participation in World Wars I and II, and longer than the Korean War and our own Civil War. With every year of occupation, our efforts to fight global terrorism and our military's readiness to fight future wars have further deteriorated, along with our standing in the world. Meanwhile, the radical Islamic cause wins more and more recruits.

Despite the presence of more than 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, 23,000 Americans injured or killed, tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths and the expenditure of nearly a half a trillion dollars, here are the dismal results:

· In September, 776 U.S troops were wounded in Iraq, the highest monthly toll in more than two years.

· Over the past year, the number of attacks against U.S. personnel has doubled, rising from 400 to more than 800 per week.

· Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, recently acknowledged that sectarian violence has replaced the insurgency as the single biggest threat to Iraq.

· In the past two months, 6,000 Iraqis died, more than in the first year of the war.

· Last week, electricity output averaged 2.4 hours per day in Baghdad and 10.4 hours nationwide -- 7 percent less than in the same period in 2005.

· A Sept. 27 World Public Opinion poll indicated that 91 percent of Iraqi Sunnis and 74 percent of Iraqi Shiites want the Iraqi government to ask U.S.-led forces to withdraw within a year. Ninety-seven percent of Sunnis and 82 percent of Shiites said that the U.S. military presence is "provoking more conflict than it is preventing." And Iraqi support for attacks against U.S.-led forces has increased sharply over the past few months, from 47 percent to 61 percent.

Now, Karl Rove may call me a defeatist, but can anyone living in the real world deny that these statistics are heading in the wrong direction? Yet despite this bleak record of performance, the president continues to stand by his team of failed architects, preferring to prop them up instead of demanding accountability.

Democrats are fighting a war on two fronts: One is combating the spin and intimidation that defines this administration. The other is fighting to change course, to do things better, to substitute smart, disciplined strategy for dogma and denial in Iraq.

That's not defeatism. That's our duty.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) is the ranking member on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

He served 37 years in the Marine Corps.

at 1:26 AM, October 16, 2006

Anonymous said...

Looks like the antiMurtha protest attracted a total of 7.

Be sure and click through for the laughable photos.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1720054/posts

Operation "Cowards Cut and Run" After Action Report. October 14th, 2006
Vanity ^ | 10/15/06 | Dalight

Posted on 10/15/2006 9:59:18 PM PDT by dalight

Our Murtha Visit push back protest went pretty well for a last minute operation. Seven folks, mostly Vets showed including a two tour Iraq War Vet. We set up about 12 pm and held vigil to about 1:30.

Murtha appearantly arrived and snuck in the back door because we never saw him. One of the various folks who were attending the fundraiser and press conference screamed across the street to this group of Marine Vets and a Navy vet with Marine and Navy Ball Caps and USMC emblems on jackets, asking if they had ever servered.. and everyones jaw dropped. It takes all sorts.

The Iraq war vet was intervied by the Cincinnati Enquirer and a reporter from El Mundo (a Spanish Daily) who was covering a number of events in Cincinnati the same day.

Note I copied and pasted so I take no credit for the spelling deficiencies.

at 1:48 PM, October 16, 2006

Anonymous said...

Hey TNP,
How is it working for Jean now that every good/competent employee she had, has now left?

Nan and the rest of the old Portman staff have been supplanted by slowwitted Clermont hillbillies who run the office like a Goshen City council meeting.

at 3:23 PM, October 16, 2006

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 1:48pm, 10/16, your prejudiced question will be answered when Congresswoman Jean Schmidt wins her fourth election in 17 months on November 7. It's bigoted attitudes like yours that keep fair-minded folks like me fired up and determined to beat you in each and every election, which we have so far. If your talent assessment of Congresswoman Jean Schmidt's staff represents a professional human resources analysis, you need to go back to business school. And while you're at it, get some of that famous Democrat, politically-correct sensitivity training so that you can hide your phony superiority and not let Appalachians know you condemn them as a group. Thanks for the motivational comment.

at 7:49 PM, October 16, 2006

Anonymous said...

I actually happen to like the people who live in Clermont County that I met very much. Please don't insult Jean Schmidt's staff and everybody else who lives in Clermont County by calling them names. I don't care if they work for Jean or not. That just isn't very nice.

I'm sure that I'd never completely agree with Jean Schmidt's employees politically. But I would never insult somebody because of where they live. Clermont County is an incredible place full of incredible people.

at 2:26 AM, October 21, 2006

Anonymous said...

Jean Schmidt is a liar. End of story.

She lied for 16 years about having a college degree, then 700WLW made the story public.

She was CONVICTED of lying about her college degree (which she didn't earn).

The very next day, on Newsmakers, she LIED again, blaming her web site...

We all know the website hasn't existed for sixteen years. Anyone can go to the Clermont Sun from 1989 and read her quote saying she has a college degree in Secondary Education...

How do you Schmidt-heads explain that? It's a blatant lie!!!

She is terrible. And yes, I'm a conservative, not a liberal. REAL conservatives don't put up with liars, no matter which party they are from.

at 2:29 AM, October 21, 2006

Anonymous said...

Jean Schmidt is a liar. End of story.

She lied for 16 years about having a college degree, then 700WLW made the story public.

She was CONVICTED of lying about her college degree (which she didn't earn).

The very next day, on Newsmakers, she LIED again, blaming her web site...

We all know the website hasn't existed for sixteen years. Anyone can go to the Clermont Sun from 1989 and read her quote saying she has a college degree in Secondary Education...

How do you Schmidt-heads explain that? It's a blatant lie!!!

She is terrible. If she doesn't lose this race, someone will take her out in the primary in 2008. She's incapable of raising money... and the party is getting tired of having to bail her out of what should be a safe seat...

REAL conservatives don't put up with liars, no matter which party they are from.

at 2:35 AM, October 21, 2006

Anonymous said...

Schmidt's days are numbered one way or another.

If not Wulsin, then the GOP will take her out in 2008 with someone like Brinkman, who is a conservative icon in Cincinnati with his own conservative cult following.

And if Brinkman can't get it done, then I will.

at 3:52 PM, October 25, 2006

Anonymous said...

Just because Jeanne Schmidt lied about having a college degree that she didn't really have is no reason to vote for her opponent. Clinton lied and nobody died. Right? So Schmidt should be able to lie too. And what if Dr. Wulsim doesn't have a medical degree and operated on people? They might die too. Do you get my point? Vote Schmidt on November 7.

Previous Posts

Friday, October 13, 2006

The one, the only Schmidt-Wulsin debate!

28 Comments: