Mandel's Campaign Blocks Cameras at Public Forum

On Wednesday evening, a candidates forum was held at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Blue Ash. The event was sponsored by several Conservative groups including COAST, the Cincinnati Tea Party and Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati. The event was moderated by former Hamilton County Commissioner, Phil Heimlich. Heimlich posed questions to candidates who are competing in many races this Spring and the vast majority of the candidates in attendance were running as Republicans.

My initial intention in covering this event was to talk to attendees and participants to see where the Conservative movement is heading. Now that the health care reform legislation has become law, it is a forum like this that can give some insight into the direction that the Republican Party will choose to take.

However my initial goal was sidetracked once the Republican Candidate for Ohio State Treasurer, Josh Mandel, took the stage. At 32, Mandel is currently the youngest member of the Ohio House of Representatives, has served in the Marine Corp. and has been on two tours of duty in Iraq. As Mandel took the stage, he was given a standing ovation for his service and it was clear during the first few moments of his speech that he was going to be well-received.

Shortly into my videotaping of Mandel's remarks, my attention was drawn to my right, where another gentleman was videotaping the speech. A member of Mandel's campaign, who I would later identify as Joel Riter, was trying to block this man's camera. (Riter is also the Legislative Aide for Josh Mandel in the Ohio House) It took me a moment to realize what was happening, but I quickly turned my own camera lens on this situation.

Once Riter noticed that he was being recorded, he promptly came over to me as I turned my lens back to the speech. Riter proceeded to hold his Blackberry approximately six inches from my face and take multiple pictures of me. In-between pictures, he proceeded to block my camera lens from videotaping Josh Mandel's speech.

I confronted Riter, asking what why he was standing in front of my camera to which he replied: "Are you working with the Democrats?" When I told him that I wasn't he said, "I thought you were, you're not?" Again, I said that I wasn't and Riter informed me that he was blocking the other man's camera because he did work with the Democrats. Here is the video:



After the candidate forum ended and I had packed up my video equipment, I ran into Josh Mandel outside. I approached him to ask about this incident, but as you will hear, once he heard that The Cincinnati Beacon has a "liberal" perspective, he completely ignored me.

Mandel made time for Republicans Phil and Rebecca Heimlich and even Democratic City Council member Cecil Thomas, but ignored my attempts to ask him about his staffer. I approached Councilman Thomas about the situation after Mandel had finished with him. Here is the audio beginning with my questioning of Mandel:



After the event, I asked the other gentleman who was having his camera blocked, if he had a moment for a question or two. He referred me to Seth Bringman, the Communications Director for the Ohio Democratic Party. Bringman issued this statement:

“Tracking your opponents is a standard practice of both parties. We had a tracker from the Ohio Democratic Party at this event, which was open to the public. Like any of our trackers, he was both respectful and professional.”

Even though both Joel Riter and Josh Mandel did not comment on this matter at the event, I also made an attempt to contact Michael Long, the Political Director for Mandel's campaign. He did not respond to either my email request or to the message that I left with his office. If I hear back, I will post his response in full.

While the majority of the Candidate forum was calm and civil, this incident took several by surprise. I had more than one citizen come up to me in the ballroom asking who the "man blocking the cameras" was. When I explained who he was and why he was blocking the cameras, these attendees expressed disgust and made mention that they would contact the campaign. You even heard COAST member Mark Miller say that this behavior is "not cool" in my interview with Cecil Thomas.

As the Mandel Campaign and Mandel himself remain silent on this issue, the fact remains that they felt it appropriate to block the cameras of those who they disagreed with during a public forum. Joel Riter operated under the assumption that I was with the Democrats and though he apologized to me personally when he realized I was not, still felt justified in blocking the camera of the gentleman who was working for the Democrats.

Josh Mandel also decided that he would only permit himself to be asked questions by media outlets who have a "Conservative" lean as evidenced by his repeated dismissal of my questions. These actions are quite curious for a candidate who claims to run his campaign with "honesty" and "integrity".



This piece is cross posted here.

Monday Morning in Massachusetts

There is plenty of Monday morning quarterbacking going on after Scott Brown (R-MA) won the Massachusetts Senate-seat of the late Ted Kennedy (D-MA). I am seeing post after post of what this means for Democrats, what this means for Republicans, and what this means for the health care legislation that is currently pending in Congress.

I wanted to share a couple of viewpoints that I thought were insightful and productive in moving this discussion forward. The first is from Jon Walker over at Firedoglake. He argues that Democrats simply cannot run on Republican obstructionism and expect to win. They have to do something productive:

Democrats control everything in Washington right now. They control the White House. They have a huge margins in the House and in the Senate. Democrats have larger margins in both chambers than any party has had for decades. They have zero excuses for failing to deliver. Americans will not find some nonsense about having only 59 Senate seats as an acceptable excuse for failing to accomplish anything. If Democrats think they can win in 2010 by running against Republican obstructionism, they will lose badly.

[...]

The party in power must run on their accomplishments and point to those accomplishments as a down payment on other promises they will fullfill if they are allowed to stay in power. You must deliver something to the voters and hope they like it. If Democrats can’t run on their record of passing legislation that makes positive change in people’s lives, they will suffer terribly in 2010.

Though this point seems obvious, I am seeing post after post that fails to acknowledge this point. Candidates in the Democratic Party ran on change and they ran on running Washington in a different way. When health care reform gets sold out to lobbyists and big Pharma, it is obvious that nothing "new and different" is being accomplished. Is it any shock that this is a contributing factor to the loss of this Senate-seat?

I also want to point your attention to Jane Hamsher's piece from earlier today:

Unless the Democrats move aggressively to right the perception that they are the party of backroom deals and massive corporate bailouts, 2010 will be more of the same. But there will certainly be no shortage of those ready to extract the wrong lessons from the Coakley loss.

Joe Lieberman, Mr. 31%, says it’s a sign that people “don’t like all the partisanship and deal-making here in Washington” and that “they’re really skeptical about this health care bill.” He doesn’t mention that it’s his health care bill they don’t like, or the fact that the bill was made unpopular as the price of his vote.

A new FDL/SurveyUSA poll of NY-01 shows how Lieberman’s bill is affecting the race in that district, one of many that the Democrats are at risk of losing in the next election. Incumbent Tim Bishop would have a narrow lead over GOP challenger Randy Altschuler if the race were held today in a contest that was rated “lean Democratic” by Cook’s Political Report.

People were pretty evenly split when asked if they supported a bill with a mandate to buy private insurance, with 50% saying it’s a good idea and 44% saying it’s a bad idea. Support fell dramatically when they were told that they would be fined up to 2% of their income for failure to comply, with 40% saying it’s a good idea and 57% saying it’s a bad idea. But when the option to buy into a government-run Medicare program was added, 63% of likely voters (66% of independents) supported it and 33% opposed even with the fine. Even support among Republicans shot up 23%.

People are skeptical of this health care bill, but it should not be interpreted that people are skeptical of health care reform. The numbers that Hamsher points to are clear. People want real and meaningful reforms to the system. What people do not want is the status quo complete with more kickbacks to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. This is what the Blue Dogs have pushed for and this is what the Obama Administration has compromised on.

The results of this election should indeed act as a wake-up call to the party, but it should not be a call to abandon all hope of meaningful legislative policy because they are scared to lose their seat. It should be a wake-up call to muster the political courage to adopt populist policies instead of staying aligned with the corporate interests who push for the status quo. If we continue to have more of the same, the political landscape is going to shift very rapidly and Massachusetts will be viewed as a precursor.

Meghan McCain Gives Being Disingenuous Another Shot

Meghan McCain has a fun new piece up at the Daily Beast today on RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

She begins her piece by saying that Steele is "alarmingly immature", "indecisive", and has had "...one snafu after another" giving the impression that he is "disorganized" and "full of mixed messages". McCain points to Steele's comments about how he "didn't seek" the Chairmanship and contrasts them with earlier quotes where Steele indicated that he wanted the job and was ready to lead. Pretty honest critique from a fellow Republican right?

Not so fast:

But let’s hold off on the firing squads. He’s had his role for only one year, and, like the rest of the party, is still adjusting and struggling to find his identity. I understand from personal experience how hard it is to be criticized by fellow Republicans. There is something that particularly stings about negative comments by people whose side you are on. And there is plenty to respect, starting with his call on Fox News Sunday this weekend for Harry Reid to give up his position as Senate Majority Leader because of his racially insensitive comments about President Obama not having a “Negro dialect.”

Ohhhh, McCain wrote her piece to defend Steele. Sorry about that. I was confused for a moment because her reasoning strikes me as a little odd. In another one of McCain's recent pieces she tears into President Obama for his decision making:

Let me be frank—I am angry. I am angry and frustrated, in a way I haven’t been in a long time. During the election, I remember the biggest fear I had about an Obama presidency was his lack of experience in foreign policy and specifically with the military. (Even as recently as two weeks ago, he showed astonishing insensitivity and naïveté when he joked with soldiers in Korea, “you guys make a pretty good photo-op”).

Shouldn't she "hold off on the firing squads"? After all, Obama has only been in his role for less than a year and, like the rest of the Administration, is finding his identity as a War President right?

Furthering her defense of Steele, McCain gives him credit for calling for Sen. Majority Leader Reid's resignation over racial comments that have caused a stir over the weekend, yet one paragraph later, contradicts herself by saying of Steele:

And he is willing to admit when he is wrong, as he did a week ago when he used the slang term “honest Injun” in an interview, and apologized for his mistakes.

For those of you keeping score at home, Sen. Reid should resign because:

- He said that Obama doesn't speak with a "Negro dialect" and despite the media noting the same thing during the campaign, this is now somehow obviously racist. Not to mention that Reid backed Obama for President, has worked to pass legislative priorities for the President and has apologized to Obama for the remarks.

and Michael Steele should be given another chance because:

- Even though he used a slur against Native Americans ("honest injun") on television, he apologized and "is willing to admit when he is wrong".

According to Meghan McCain, one action is worthy of resignation and the other is worthy of giving a leader another shot. From all indications, she is being serious.

Interview with Dr. Brad Wenstrup, 2009 Republican Candidate for Mayor of Cincinnati

Dr. Brad Wenstrup, a lifetime resident of Cincinnati, is the 2009 Republican candidate for Mayor of Cincinnati. Wenstrup is a member of the U.S. Army Reserve and ran his own medical practice in downtown Cincinnati from 1986 to 2001. The Cincinnati Beacon reached out to the Wenstrup campaign on numerous occasions in attempts to get responses to our questions. Below is the outcome of our efforts:

CB: You suggest revitalizing neighborhoods with a model like between 3CDC and Over-the-Rhine. 3CDC received public subsidies to purchase abandoned buildings. How can this model work in the neighborhoods? Do you support more subsidies for private corporations to purchase buildings?


BW: (No response provided)


CB: You say the Environmental Justice Ordinance kills jobs. Can you point to one job that has been "killed" since the very recent implementation of this ordinance?


BW: (No response provided)


CB: What is one example by which a mayor can specifically stimulate job growth for minority-owned and women-owned businesses?


BW: (No response provided)


CB: What aspect of the streetcar's funding structure is "wasteful"? Do you deny that the streetcar brings economic development? If so, on what basis? If not, then why not support the plan?


BW: (No response provided)


CB: Is there a relationship between human service funding and crime? What role should human service funding play during tough budgetary scenarios?


BW: (No response provided)


CB: You call "spraygrounds" more modern than swimming pools. How are disadvantaged children supposed to learn how to swim?


BW: (No response provided)


CB: You say you support no cuts to the "frontline" in police and fire. What about administration? How many cuts can you support to bloated administrative costs with fire and police? How quickly will you implement these cuts?


BW: (No response provided)


CB: If elected, would you be willing to meet with online activists in designing a more transparent interface for tracking City Hall actions?


BW: (No response provided)


CB: You say you want to be engaged as mayor, attending public comment sessions. Will you require councilmembers to be attentive, or is it acceptable to use Twitter in open council chambers?


BW: (No response provided)


CB: If you went to a different community council once a week, you'd only see each community once a year. Isn't "Mayor's Night In" a more effective strategy to hear from concerned voters?


BW: (No response provided)


This interview is cross posted here.

Above photo is courtesy of here.

Interview with Amy Murray: Cincinnati City Council Candidate, 2009

Amy Murray is the past President of the Hyde Park Neighborhood Council and has been endorsed as a Republican for her 2009 race for Cincinnati City Council. Murray is also President of The Japan Consulting Group and has previously worked for Procter and Gamble as well as Xavier University. Her website states that her objective in running for council is to "to make Cincinnati known as a top, American livable city - one where our children stay or choose to return to live."

CB: What is your position on ordinance 910-23, Cincinnati’s “anti-marijuana ordinance”? Should it stay on the books, or be repealed—and why?


AM: Possession and distribution of marijuana laws are already on the books here in Cincinnati. Other cities in the region do not have ordinances like this. I would recommend a review of the ordinance to determine if it has been effective or not.


CB: You recently signed a pledge with COAST not to raise taxes. COAST has a mission which claims it wants to limit taxes to the rate of inflation. However, the current system known as "property tax rollbacks" holds that portion of taxes at a rate that is actually below inflation, which means the City cannot keep pace with growing expenses. Do you support continuing the property tax rollbacks? Please explain your answer.


AM: As you mentioned, I will not support raising taxes. And I do support continuing the property tax rollbacks. It is important for the City of Cincinnati to live within its means, just as the taxpayers and their families have to do the same. When a family is having trouble keeping pace with growing expenses, it usually cuts its expenses, or finds other sources of revenue.


CB: What is your position on the debate between how to define "basic services"? Are swimming pools, rec centers, and other human services "basic"? Please explain.


AM: In the specific case of our city; Cincinnati neighborhood pools provide a healthy and safe way for many of our youth to occupy themselves during the summer months. In our current financial crisis it is all about smart choices and setting priorities. I would clearly see the pools as a priority and a good investment in our youth. I would consider basic services - Police, Fire, Sewer, Water and Trash.


CB: Do you support the local NAACP’s frequent petition drives, or do you think that organization is abusing City government? Please explain.


AM: Any local group is allowed to hold a petition drive if it wants to. That is one of the great freedoms we enjoy as Americans, as is outlined in the US Constitution.


CB: GOP Mayoral Candidate Brad Wenstrup wants undercover outside agents to spy on Cincinnati police to monitor their behavior. Do you think this a good idea? Why or why not?


AM: It is my understanding that this was not a correct quote. The Cincinnati Police Department has an Internal Investigations unit that already reviews alleged misconduct by officers.


CB: You say you want to offer tax relief to families who pay to send their kids to private schools. Why should families get a tax benefit because they have the resources to pay for what amounts to a fringe benefit (private education)?


AM: A strong education system is very important to keep and attract families and jobs to Cincinnati. Many cities are looking at innovative options to make education a reason that all families stay in the city. I am in favor of looking “outside of the box” and seeing what we can do to support education in Cincinnati.


CB: You say you want to reach out to the community councils. Can you explain with some specificity how you intend to create meaningful dialog with all 52 community groups?


AM: My background is with neighborhood councils. I was on my local council for 8 years and was President of the Hyde Park Neighborhood council. These community groups do so much for our city – zoning, beautification and youth efforts. This is critical work that City Council would not be able to do without the efforts of our Community Councils. I plan to reach out to the councils in 2 ways:

1. Open and transparent government – I will reach out to all community councils so that they have my complete contact information and feel comfortable contacting me as issues arise in the communities. I want to be known as the Council member to go to when you need community help and assistance. We may not always agree on every issue or every solution – but I will always be there to listen and offer support and solutions.

2. I plan on personally establishing regular times that are open for meetings with community councils – and I will attend community council meetings on an on-going basis.


CB: Would you support the implementation of a Domestic Partnership registry for the City of Cincinnati, as has been done in places like Toledo and Cleveland? Why or why not?


AM: I do not see this as a role for the City of Cincinnati. The state of California has a similar registry. If the state of Ohio were to follow suit, it would save the taxpayers money, by having one statewide office.


Photo is Courtesy of here

This is crossposted at the Cincinnati Beacon which you can find here.