Lunch Time

I have found a writing window!

In the real mayoral race, Matt Lampke continues to have the proverbial Friends Like These. The current issue of ThisWeek has a Bonnie Butcher story about the FOP endorsement that Mr. Lampke has been touting, and the impression among the other candidates that the FOP endorsed somewhat capriciously and without going through their typical notification process. Some of this can be attributed to the timeline, as Mr. Lampke was doing his endorsement interview before Robyn Jones or Scott Weinblatt had made official announcements, and within days of John Brennan's announcement. Bill Minckler and Travis Irvine, however, are both quoted as saying they were never informed, and they were both publicly declared candidates for several weeks at that point.

So, the FOP's credibility takes a bit of a hit from this. Even Mr. Lampke says he went out of his way to ask others about the endorsement process, and does not give any indication that he received written notification. It would appear that, at least by their own standards, the FOP fouled up the process this go-round.

It doesn't appear that Mr. Lampke himself fouled anything up. He pro-actively sought an endorsement and got it. Now, due to factors assumably beyond his control, the endorsement has lost some luster. I tagged his friends earlier over a pseudo-endorsement. The snarky part of me is forced to wonder if ThisWeek is pursuing the Conservation Voters' endorsement.

In the meantime, I'm more upset with the FOP for their efforts to create a special class of records that provide privacy for their members that is not afforded to the general public, or other public employees. I can understand their concerns, but what about judges? What about attorneys? What about teachers and principals? Who, exactly, will never make enemies? Our State Senator, David Goodman, expects their proposal (by expects, I mean he was in an expectative state last Tuesday, which has probably been replaced by actual knowledge in the meantime) to pass out of his committee, although the article doesn't attribute a position to Mr. Goodman either way. Of course, in today's Dispatch, Goodman does come out for greater openness in terms of legislators' emails. Perhaps I should send one of those public record electronic messages and ask him about his position on shielding/hiding public safety officials from the public.

In news of the other mayoral race, I told you so. As if on effing cue: Bill Todd.

Harvey, Naugle, Zherdev

Sunday Sunday Sunday. Most weekends find me playing the part of the man Frank the Tank has become at the outset of the movie Old School:

Frank: I told my wife I wouldn't drink tonight. Besides, I got a big day tomorrow. You guys have a great time.
College Student: A big day? Doing what?
Frank: Well, um, actually a pretty nice little Saturday, we're going to go to Home Depot. Yeah, buy some wallpaper, maybe get some flooring, stuff like that. Maybe Bed, Bath, & Beyond, I don't know, I don't know if we'll have enough time.*


What's even worse is that unlike Frank, I don't break out of that rut through spontaneous regression to house-partying, I do it by chatting up a mayoral candidate, emailing with another blogger, and going to a hockey game, and I'm sincerely happy with, and exhausted from, the day at the end of it.

So to start - Bill Harvey. I'm planning on doing longer pieces/conversations with several candidates over the next two weeks, and this is the first. I wrote after the C of C forum that Mr. Harvey was a traditional mayoral candidate and that there weren't any surprises. Of course, there's a reason that traditions develop. Mr. Harvey believes that Bexley's significant problems are financial, specifically a potential 2 million dollar budget deficit. Furthermore, he believes that his financial experience exceeds that of the other candidates. So if you buy those two premises, he believes you'll vote for him.

It's a nice 30 second pitch that sounds better in person than from the table. After chatting about blogs, media, and electoral politics more generally, I should have pushed harder at the cost-cutting side of the finance equation, but I was more focused on revenue. We discussed how hard Bexley could be hit if the legislature isn't mindful of the consequences of Estate Tax reform, and he re-iterated his position that government buildings should not be getting in the way of commercial development on Main St.

Mr. Harvey hasn't spent a lot of energy working out plans for the North or South gateways, a subject he admits requires some more thought, but he did respond quickly when I asked about the Woodland Meadows property. Somewhat to my surprise he favors aggressively pursuing the parcel for the city. As he says, it's a one time opportunity to get that extra land, and even though it would take "real money, right now" to purchase the parcel during a period in which Harvey himself says budget cutting will be a priority, he believes that Bexley would regret passing up the opportunity. He suggested that some combination of the City, School District, Capital Univ., and perhaps CSG and/or St. Charles could collaborate.

At some point I cut the conversation short, as I had a hockey game to go to. It was a comfortable conversation, and that's not always easy to pull off.

It's even tougher when you start the conversation with insults. Matt Naugle of Right Angle Blog commented on the race last week, I took offense and commented on the comment. Mr. Naugle took offense in turn and emailed me. I sent a somewhat testy email explaining myself back. Mr. Naugle sent what seemed to be a sincerely friendly email back. So, I apologize for the insulting tone of my last post, and I hope that Matt and I can both be so friendly when we run into each other in person, which is apparently not unlikely in the near future.

I hope we can at least be more civil than Charlotte. You wouldn't believe the trash talk that comes out of that girl's mouth. Here she's saying "Hey Henrik, are you the okay Sedin twin or the one that sucks?"




Don't be too hard on her. Nik Zherdev gave up the turnover that led to the empty-netter right in front of her. It's enough to make anyone cranky, dream seats or no.


*Quote via commenter on this site.

Been taking a break

Lots of stuff going on all over. Not just with the campaigns in Bexley, but everywhere from my dining room ('soft duckling') to Sweden Norway (Gore goes for the Grand Slam). In between:

Columbus Blue Jackets Hockey. Want to know what's more depressing than losing at home on a late goal that forces you into a shootout shutout? Doing it front of 7,000 empty seats? Maybe, but perhaps what's most depressing is being in a city where the local paper feels that it's necessary to interpret during the following Nash quote:

"Everyone would like to have a (Daniel) Alfredsson, (Dany) Heatley and (Jason) Spezza line (one of the NHL's best, in Ottawa), but you have to be pretty lucky. Hitch is just looking for the right combinations." (emphasis added)

Perhaps they should have gone further - "...in Ottawa, a city in Canada where hockey is also played professionally." Argh. How to make the best of it? Well, I just picked up two tix for a weekend game, literally on the glass, for $50 apiece. The upside to low demand is a buyer's market. If you want to read hockey, go to the sidebar and click on the Neutral Zone Trap. She's my favorite CBJ blogger, and she can gateway you to the rest of 'em.

Another blogger I read, but who I don't actually link to: Megan Mcardle. She's a national blogger and fairly conservative, but that's okay, as she's an economist. I sometimes think I should have been an economist. More often I think that perhaps I should have worked harder to overcome the impediments to actually becoming a career cognitive neuroscientist, especially now that the work I was doing is coming out in a nice venue. But I'm more than happy enough to be doing research on higher education, which is my new gig starting at the beginning of next month.

Speaking of conservative bloggers, the walking blogger stereotype Matt Naugle has decided to weigh in on the race here. He's narrowed his endorsement field to 7.

And in a final nod to other bloggers, A Mere Detour has picked up my slack and expressed annoyance with Pat Tiberi.

If I did read more bloggers, I would probably have a better handle on how folks are viewing the Stephanie Groce/FCDP tiff. I liked her when I met her, but I'm really pretty neutral on the issue of whether she should have gotten the official endorsement of the party in the first place, given the set of issues that are being brought up now and the general inconsequentiality of the endorsement in a non-partisan race. The time for labor, however, to express an objection occurred a while ago. I'm not sure how long ago, but less than three weeks prior to the election is a late hit. And then, even if the unions just now realized that Groce supports charter schools and pay freezes, perhaps the party could have said to them "yanking our endorsement three weeks before election day makes us look petty and stupid." FCDP would have some unhappy friends, sure, but would have done less overall harm to the brand name.

In the end, the party keeps its foot soldiers morale up (good), and Groce (with her vastly increased name recognition) wins her seat handily (I really am not sure who would actually prefer otherwise, at least this cycle). And Bill Todd finally gets a coherent talking point on education (Ugh).

And speaking of Todd, the CD did a piece on the Columbus mayoral candidates (mis)use of crime statistics. In that piece, the author characterized Coleman's optimistic reading of the numbers as making Columbus "look like Bexley with three-quarters of a million people." A strange indirect compliment for our city, but a nice indirect compliment, nonetheless.

Back to the homestretch here this weekend.

See, this is how it works - Updated

Like I said in the last post, candidates are welcome/encouraged to contact me if they need to respond to something in the comments. Bill Harvey has taken me up on the offer, with very good reason. As Mr. Harvey says:

I did not say anything to anyone about city employees and their future with the city other than this - which I have said (and will continue to say) publicly -- I will assume that every employee who works for the city is the best qualified person for their position until (a) I review their personnel records (b) I interview them and their supervisor and (c) I make my own determination reqarding their qualifications.


I don’t expect this to be something I will do quickly since, as I said, I am assuming the people who work for the city today are qualified. I also believe that these steps will be taken by anyone who would be elected. It is just good management.



The need for clarification arises because (pay attention) an anonymous commenter claims that another candidate had deliberately mischaracterized Mr. Harvey's position. While some people might have interpreted that accusation as simply an attack on that other candidate, the result was to inject that mischaracterization into the public discourse, creating the need to refute it. There's no independent evidence that the other candidate ever actually talked about Mr. Harvey's position (accurately or otherwise), so it is entirely possible that the anonymous commenter was going for a two-fer, smearing multiple candidates simultaneously.

As I've said, I'm more than happy to do it when asked, but I really don't want posts like this to have to become a regular feature, so please play nice.

Update - Matt Lampke has also sent a note regarding recent anonymous allegations:

I have run a positive campaign and am focusing on my ideas for Bexley's future and on the public and community service I have performed for Bexley in the past. I am committed to being your Mayor for the next twenty years if the Bexley residents will have me. If anyone would like to go to the source with their questions or concerns, please contact me at 231-8172 or by e-mail at mlampke@columbus.rr.com

On Comments

Every few months I do a version of this post. As we approach Election Day it seems I need a re-run:

1) I allow any comments that are not spam, and I allow you to post them without leaving your identity.

2) If I could require that you at least use a pseudonym, I would, but I can't, so I will simply ask nicely and encourage strongly: If you don't want to use your actual name/nickname, don't choose "anonymous" when leaving a comment. Choose "other," and make up a name. I don't care what the name is, it could be 'anon1' for all I care. When you post anonymously, people reply anonymously, and then you get comments like "I agree with anonymous that anonymous doesn't understand what anonymous is trying to say, but anonymous does have a point." Please don't start conversations like that here.

Special NOTE!! There is no known-to-me limit on what name can be chosen. It is always good to be suspicious of the contents of anonymous postings, you should also be cautious about assuming posts from individuals with real names are actually posted by the flesh-and-bone person with that name. For instance, if someone named "David Madison" posted a mayoral endorsement in the comments, you can pretty much assume it's an impostor.

3) For those who are inexperienced at internet forums (like comment threads in blogs), it is almost always better to leave the trolls/cranks/etc. alone. Do not engage. They don't care about reasoned debate, they care about pushing agendas and/or picking fights. You don't really want to help them. You will be tempted, and on occasion you will give into that temptation. Then you will remember why people keep giving you this advice.

I say this now in particular because there have been some sensationalist and rumor-mongering type hits on some of the candidates that have been left as comments on this blog. When I read a blog, and a post has only one comment, I sometimes read the comment. If it has 10 comments, I will definitely check out the comments. Taking on the cheap shots only tends to help the cheap shot artist.

If a campaign would like to respond to such a commenter, however, they can email me, and I'll try to get them front page space if they want it.

4) It should go without saying, but I don't endorse any comments, nor do I necessarily even like the presence of any particular comment, unless I specifically say that I do. I do like to encourage readers to comment and converse, so I take the bad with the good. A lot of good discussions have taken place in the comments here.

5) Finally, I would like to congratulate Bexley on the cleanliness of the campaign so far. I got an email from someone in another suburb who had created a brand new anonymous email account from a computer at their public library for the sole apparent purpose of mailing embarrassing legal records regarding a candidate out to bloggers. That's the sort of thing that leaves a grimy film on every one involved. I'm not a fan of some of the anonymous comments here at BB, but it's nothing compared to that kind of sliminess.