Last night I was watching Toledo's WTVG and they had a clip of both Ben Konop and George Sarantou about the whole issue of ethics and Lucas County. Part of this is written about on this Toledo Blade article
What the article doesn't mention though is George's statement about Ben's Aunt, which he referred to if memory is correct, "Ben's Aunt Sandy, Sandy Isenberg" along with Ray Kest had been found guilty of ethics violations by the State. WTVG stated after the clip that neither had been but that's only a small part of this. Isenberg was not even indicted by the Ohio Ethics Commission.
Ben Konop is the one running for Lucas County Commissioner, George Sarantou is running for Lucas County Commmissioner. The concerns regarding George Sarantou and the now "famous" possible money in the envelope deal relate directly to...George Sarantou.
During the primary we saw first hand that Phil Copeland didn't have a problem with people thinking that he was his deceased Uncle Bill Copeland. He was proud of his uncle's record, (rightfully so) yet what kind of an elected official Bill Copeland was has nothing to do with Phil Copeland. Yes, we have a lot of families involved in Lucas County politics. They do use the name recognition to their benefit and at times that can also be attempted to be used as a jab at a candidate.
Sandy Isenberg is not the one running, not to mention after years of being in office that focusing on the roof deal as some major indication of her years in office is not a fair representation, but that's beside the point.
WTVG does not have the clip up of George making this statement, claiming that both Sandy and Ray Kest were found guilty of ethics violations, yet it concerns me that George made such an incorrect statement because chances are if he said it on camera he is saying it off camera. Even if it was correct, which in this case it wasn't, that has no bearing on this election.
It's another, "Don't look at what I did, look at THIS instead" that has nothing to do with the real issues at hand right now in this moment in time.
The whole roof deal was a part of another campaign for Lucas County Commissioner and while I realize in this never ending game of tit for tat has been used often, yet George? I know Ben Konop and that sir, was not his roof.
:-)
Keeping Your Belongings Safe Through Storms
-
Years ago almost every house was built with some sort of shutter, whether
designed as storm shutters or for security. Granted, most windows during
those d...
13 years ago
45 comments:
It's so tiring to see this Ethics issue used in a campaign for County Commissioner. How does it help the "ordinary man or woman" in Lucas County?
We have had ehtics commissions at the state level for years and there still seems to be a handful of "bad apples" that continue to get themselves elected. It is the responsibility of the electorate to put good people in leadership positions. The citizens need to educate themselves and not vote solely on name recognition, etc. Until we do so, we will get the type of leadership that we have had in this County.
Ben is a bright guy. I sure hope he can do better expressing his "new ideas" that will actually improve our lives in Lucas County.
During the primary, Ben called Tim Wagener a liar for claiming that Ben said the Blade wanted him to win the election. It was later confirmed that Ben said this to Copeland as well. Does ethics not involve telling the truth? Does ethics involve accusing someone else of being a liar when you are the one not telling the truth. I think Ben is an arrogant individual who will do and say anything to win an election and the fact that he is in the back pocket of JR at the Blade, makes this one democrat a big Sarantau fan.
Anon #2 - The Blade did endorse Ben, but that doesn't mean that they helped to elect him. Nor more than it would mean that the Toledo Free Press helped the two they endorsed.
I don't know what you are specifically trying to claim Ben stated, given some of the silliness I've heard such as "Ben called the Blade every day to see what to say", if it was that type of a statement then I'd say it was pretty safe to call that a lie.
To anonymous number 1, I agree there are other issues that are important but ethics is a huge issue right now, and should be important to the ordinary people. I'm sure Ben is going to also continue to focus on some of the other ideas/plans that he talked about during the primary.
In an earlier post I commented that I was little worried about the ethics of Goerge Sarantou.
Might I eat my shoe and say, 'perhaps.'
lisa,
Xxx xx x xxxxxx xxxx xxx x xxxxxxx xxxxxxx. X xxxx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxx xx xxx xxx, xxx xxx xx x? X xxxxx Xxx xxxxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx.
And George has a lot of nerve after admitting to his envelope three years after Bob did a bad thing to even advocate anything ethical.
Ethics should be the last thing in this campaign on either side. Focus on how you're going to spend the county taxpayers money on pork projects and crony "A" team dem/republican agendas.
Brian, hopefully that was a whole bunch of "Man Lisa you are awesomes" - lol
If I were to give advice to George I'd say sign the ethics pledge, it would make this be a non-issue. If I were giving advice to Ben, I'd say make sure you concentrate on a lot more than just this issue.
Personally while I'm glad George finally came forward with this information he really only has himself to blame for it being an issue now. Someone else coming forward with it would have been more harmful, more advice would have been to just say "Considering what happened if that situation ever comes up again? I'd do it different".
:-)
I've read Ben's ethics pledge and think George should sign it.
However, considering what's going on in the county with hiring, board appointments, solicitations for campaign donations and other activity, the sitting commissioners should be asked to sign it as well! What good would it do to have such a pledge from one commissioner when the other two violate it on a daily basis?
Lisa, I'm refering to Ben's interview on WSPD right before the primary. He called Tim Wagener pathetic and liar for claiming that Ben approached him and said that JR wanted him to be the commissioner and he needed to run any ideas by JR. Then they interviewed Copeland who pretty much told the same story about Ben's attempt at intimidation and bullying. I think Fred Lefebreve said it best on WSPD when he said something to the effect, we now know who the liar and it isn't Tim or Phil. That's what I'm talking about.
Thanks for the clarification anon2 - I didn't hear either one of those situations on WSPD. I was told Tim accused Ben of bribing him, which to which I heard Ben said was a lie. I do believe I stated at the time that if that was true Tim should have reported it, from my understanding this happened back in January if we are talking about the same situation.
But, as I said, I didn't hear either your interpretation of that or what was said by others who heard it.
That would be the upside of WSPD providing an audio archive.
Anon 3 - To me the advantage would be having at least one LCC that had signed an ethics pledge. It's a start.
"It's so tiring to see this Ethics issue used in a campaign for County Commissioner. How does it help the "ordinary man or woman" in Lucas County?"
Anon #1, the ethics pledge is good politics. As a young, progressive Democrat, Ben is interested in more than the office of commissioner. Ethics is (and always should be) a Democratic value, and it's a good thing to get that across to people going into the '06 election. And, I think Ben has done a good job of articulating ideas other than the ethics pledge.
Anon #2, during the primary, Tim Wagener repeatedly lied about Ben Konop, and WSPD was all too happy to repeat those lies ad nauseum. First, Lisa Renee correctly points out that Mr. Wagener invented a story about Ben trying to bribe Mr. Wagener to stay out of the commissioners' race. Second, Mr. Wagener misrepresented Ben's comments from the second commissioner's debate in an attempt to portray Ben as an "elitist" who looks down on the working class. Third, I know Ben personally, and he doesn't "need to run ideas past JR". Ben's a smart, independent thinker, and his enthusiasm for public service is genuine.
Relying on WSPD for your info about Ben Konop is a bit like relying on Bush/Cheney campaign literature for your info about John Kerry. Instead, try stopping by a Konop campaign event and meet the man yourself. That's the nice thing about local politics. And, look out, you might wind up liking the guy.
Re-reading my comment, I need to make a clarification: When I said "ethics is a Democratic value", what I meant is that ethics is a key campaign issue for the Dems in '06 (any William Jefferson damage notwithstanding). I didn't mean to sound like I'm claiming that only Democrats value ethics.
I didn't take it that way Don, as we know locally at least one Republican Dave Schulz has also made ethics a key issue. I think ethics can be an important focus for both sides and I wish both sides paid more attention to those in their own parties first then turn their focus on what the other side is doing wrong.
As far as the LCC race, I think a very important question should be which man do you truly believe would speak up if he felt something unethical was happening? My own opinion would be that would be Ben.
According to Don, Copeland and Wagener are liars and Ben is the saint who's going to save the day for Lucas County. It is a fact that Ben told Phil Copeland he shouldn't run for commissioner because the Blade wanted him to be a commissioner. It is a fact that Ben told Tim Wagener if he dropped out to run for state representative, he's make sure the UAW gave Wagener money to run that campaign and he was worried that with Wagener in the race, Copeland might sneak through with a win. Both of those are facts. And when Wagener mentioned that Ben should drop out and run for auditor, it is a fact that Ben said, "I'd have to run that by JR because he wants me to be commissioner." Those are facts. You might not like it because you idolize your law professor but they are facts. Take the rose colored glasses off...Ben is an opportunistic politician who will do and say whatever he thinks will win an election. He knows people are tired of corrupt politicians so he's talking ethics. Smart but he's just like a lot of them.
And if you really want to find out what Ben's like, talk to Anita Lopez who is running for Auditor about the conversation she had with Ben about the Auditor's Race. Worst day of her life is what she has told supporters.
I'll be happy to talk to Anita Lopez, but unless you are Tim nothing you are stating is a true fact, it's what you have been told or heard.
Considering Tim waited until right before the election to make this claim which to me makes it suspect. He had more than ample opportunity to have addressed this publicly and should have if it was a valid claim.
I realize there are still Tim supporters out there that hold some bad feelings that they had even prior to the election nor do I believe that Ben Konop is a God without fault yet I don't believe that he does the bidding of JR or that he would say he had to run it by JR because he wanted him to be commissioner. That doesn't even sound like something Ben would say. It will be interesting to see what Anita has to say, and I'll be more than happy to post her response.
I think a very important question should be which man do you truly believe would speak up if he felt something unethical was happening?
Ben, who during the debates stated he wasn't going to say anything bad about his fellow democrates? Or George, who's proven he doesn't know how to speak up?
Almost as good a contest as Carty vs Ford.
Lisa - I'm glad you'll talk to Anita....I think you will find what she has to say or doesn't have to say very interesting. And it's not just Wagener supporters that are less than pleased with the type of campaign Konop ran....Copeland supporters are as well. As of now, you don't have either Copeland or Wagener publicly endorsing Konop while Hayman has endorsed Sarantau. That tells you something that both Copeland and Wagener who have been democrats longer than Konop has been alive are as of yet, not willing to play the loyal party member and support them. If one of them didnt, sour grapes. For both not to, something must have happened to really turn them off to Ben.
And speaking of Ben's maturity of lack thereof, the rally right before the primary with Strickland, Ben asked a Wagener volunteer for a piece of literature, held it up in front of his adoring law students who he paid to help, and tore it in half. I was aghast. When I saw that, I went home and called Wagener to let him know the maturity of his opponenet. I was leaning towards Wagener before that but that cemented it and made it clear that I could never vote for someone like Konop. He really needs to grow up!
"According to Don, Copeland and Wagener are liars and Ben is the saint who's going to save the day for Lucas County."
Yeah, I think Wagener's spun some B.S. But where did I say anything about Copeland? Is that another one of your "facts", anonymous?
"It is a fact that Ben told Tim Wagener if he dropped out to run for state representative, he's make sure the UAW gave Wagener money to run that campaign".
Anonymous, wherever you're getting your information, you have been misled. You don't know what you're talking about. I was with Ben when he got a call informing him that Wagener was making the above accusation. Ben had no idea what Wagener was talking about. In fact, we discussed the possibility of a defamation suit, but decided to simply let Wagener drown in his own sewer of dirty politics. The primary poll results have vindicated that decision.
Let me get this straight, anonymous. You don't like Ben because you think he's a "liar" and "will do and say anything to win an election". So now you're "a big Sarantau fan". OK. Did you NOT read Lisa Renee's post? Did you miss the part where Sarantau made false statements about a member of Ben's family and one other person?
Why do you dislike Ben for allegedly making false statements, while cheerfully ignoring Sarantau's own demonstrably false statements? Why the double standard?
Call me an empiricist, but I'll rely on my own experiences in formulating my opinions about Ben Konop. I think I've had enough life experience to be able to do that. But thanks, anonymous, for attempting to save me from myself.
Anonymous,
We'll just have to agree to disagree about Konop. Do what you will.
Tim stated he would support Ben after the election.
I hope you also place as much focus on George Sarantou as well rather than just be "anti-Ben". The decision is going to come down to George or Ben.
No, what Wagener said was that he has historically always supported the democratic candidates, not that he was supporting Ben. Big difference.
I am a democrat for Sarantau so I have no intention of criticizing him.
And Don, just because Ben pretended like he didn't know what was going on, doesn't make it so. Again, talk to Anita Lopez. See what she has to say. But I guess Ben will still probably be right and Tim and Phil and Anita and everyone else will be wrong.
I'll never vote for Ben and plan to work tirelessly for George who will be the first republican I have ever campaigned for. I just wish Ben would go back to Lima.
I know for a fact that some wanted Tim Wagener to run for Dictrict 46 state representative. However, he chose to take part in a three way primary.
We do, however, have a choice in the 46th District as a virtual newcomer who I met on primary election day has thrown his hat into the ring, and earned his way onto the ballot on May 2. We need to get behind Mark Dansack, who is the Democratic candidate for District 46. All he needs is some publicity and $$ and he can make District 46 a race.
Low-key, serious, but impressive communicator who needs support of democrats in western Lucas County.
I believe Teresa Fedor is working with him and has helped out his campaign. Let's get behind Mark Dansack, who is truly a new and refreshing voice for the Democrats.
Though Wagener and Konop had public spats throughout the primary campaign, Wagener said he planned to follow party lines by supporting Konop in the general election.
"Hopefully we can get together as Democrats," Wagener said. "There's some fence mending that needs to be done."
Tim's statement, and thanks for being open about why you are being critical of only Ben. If Ben does something I disagree with, I'll still point it out. On the flip side, if I read or hear something from George that I agree with I'll also focus on that. Hopefully while you may not vote for Ben you aren't also going to support Blackwell.
To the other anon on Mark Dansack, I appreciate that information and will do what I can to provide information on his campaign. If you have any information as far as a website and you don't want to email me, please post it. He's only listed here with basic info.
:-)
I found contact information for Mark.
:-)
Anonymous, here are two statements form your most recent comment:
"I guess Ben will still probably be right and Tim and Phil and Anita and everyone else will be wrong."
"I am a democrat for Sarantau so I have no intention of criticizing him."
OK, Anonymous, why am I held to a different standard than you are? Where do you get off criticizing me for sticking up for Ben, while at the same time, you clearly assert your own refusal to criticize the candidate you support? As Lisa Renee pointed out, Sarantau is perfectly willing to make false statements about other people. Why aren't you willing to address that issue? Why does George get a free pass, while Ben is held to a higher standard?
Your contention that Ben was "pretending" to not know what Wagener was talking about is nothing but pure speculation. But if you prefer to rely on hearsay rather than an eyewitness account, that's your choice.
Also, where do you get off insisting that I have to accept Anita Lopez' views on Ben, while at the same time you are sarcastically dismissive of my views? I've spent a lot of time with Ben, and I think those experiences are sufficient to reach my own conclusions about Ben's character. I can be swayed on almost any issue, but in this case, I didn't find your arguments compelling. Rather than address the substance of my arguments, you've chosen to write me off as some kind of Konop-worshipper. Does your uncritical support of Sarantau make you a Sarantau-worshipper, anonymous? Of course not, because Don is held to an entirely different standard than anonymous.
I think you're just bent out of shape because I'm not willing to uncritically swallow your tired WSPD talking points. So sorry. I know Ben Konop better than you do, and he's not the person you are making him out to be.
Finally, as far as me thinking "everyone else" is wrong about Ben: In case you haven't been keeping up on current events, Ben Konop soundly beat both Copeland and Wagener by 20 points EACH. By that measure, my views on Ben are not minority positions.
Good day to you, sir.
Don, I think the Anita Lopez comments are directed at me because I am interested in hearing what her response is to what was posted here.
I always prefer to get information as directly as I can and if she does have issues with Ben it could very well be benefical to discuss/ attempt to resolve or move on. Or Anita could not agree with what was stated.
I agree with you that it appears there is a higher standard of behavior that Ben is supposed to follow by some of his detractors but we saw that during the primary as well. I think anon is about as likely to be swayed for Ben as you could be swayed against Ben, which makes that part of the discussion moot. Especially since even Tim Wagener is going to vote for Ben, which should tell you something. All I'd like is for people to base their vote on the pluses and minuses of both candidates, what plan each candidate has as far as their goals and who has the ability to accomplish those goals.
There are going to be people who support and plan to vote for George who read and post here. Hopefully the discussion when that happens can focus on both candidates in a productive manner rather than he said/she said type moments.
:-)
Well said, Lisa.
I'm perfectly willing to listen to Konop critics, including Anita Lopez. However, there's not a politician on Earth without detractors.
If you interviewed everyone who's ever met me, I'll receive some favorable and some unfavorable reviews, hopefully a lot less of the latter. That's life. You can't please everyone you meet.
Same goes for anonymous. I'm sure he's got some loyal friends, and he's probably also got people who don't think highly of him. Just like anyone else.
If we can't agree on Ben Konop, hopefully anonymous and I can agree it's time to take on Ken Blackwell & Co.
I agree Don, and I'm biased when it comes to you too, I will admit that 100%.
You are my favorite radio star.
:-)
Lisa - you pulled out the quote and nowhere in the quote does it say Tim is voting for Ben or supporting Ben. Tim says he has historically supported the party candidate and expects that to continue...expects doesn't mean it will. He said there is some fence mending to be done and in my last conversation with both Wagener and Copeland, that hasn't happened which is why neither has publicly endorsed Konop. Expecting to support the party candidate is one thing....actually doing it is another. And I can guarantee you that Copeland will not be working hard for Ben in the central city and Wagener will not be working hard for Ben in Maumee and elsewhere where Wagener ran well.
On a side note, I am definitely for Strickland over Blackwell, Brown although I wish it were Hackett, Dann, Brunner, Sykes, Espy, Cordray, O'Neill, Lopez, and Szollosi. If I were in Dansack's district, I'd be for him too. I am a democrat...I've voted for a handful of republicans in my life who I felt were good people, would do a good job and were moderate. Sarantau will be the next.
Anon, I've voted/supported Republicans too, Dave is one example. We disagree on George V Ben but I especially agree with you on Hackett. I also voted for Dann in the primary and will vote for him in the General.
I've also voted third party before so I'm not going to give you any guff about not being a party line person. That would make me a rather large hypocrite, my point was from my understanding Tim was going to vote for Ben. There are things I like about George, however I prefer Ben especially when it comes to moving this area forward.
I haven't talked to Tim or Ben recently to know if anything is being done as far as the "fence mending" aspect. It'd be nice if some of this could be resolved. If not? We just have to focus on the issues. At least it's more civil than much of what has happened recently within the Lucas County Dem party in this whole Vasquez V Santiago mess.
:-)
Missing is the fact there will be 3 "A"-team Blade lackeys running Lucas County if Ben win's the seat.
Maggie was correct when she stated that City Council wields more power than a LCC.
Seeing I'm on the outside looking in, I have the advantage of not being "star-struck" like these political "one-upsmanship" between anon and others.
I'm expecting my "fans" will smokescreen facts, and that's to be expected, but from what I understand, there will be some serious changes in Lucas County if Ben get's elected, and it isn't looking good for the taxpayer.
Personally, after these allegations I've read, I can state this: Ben was the only campaigner that stated misinformation on his campaign stops. Ben is the only campaigner that violated the "ethics" of the campaign by using Marcy Kapter in his phone contact program, and Ben has clearly trashed Tim and Phil regularly during the campaign, contrary to what a poster on this thread wants you to believe.
Phil is a scumbag and Tim grew Maumee during his tenure. Both factual statements. I also believe the antics Ben pulled at Strickland's campaign stop, seeing I heard about it before reading this published comment for the first time in Toledo on this site.
I've said it before and I'll say it again here, Ben is not the person for this position.
Briainvero:
I completely forgot about using Marcy Kaptur in the automated phone calls without her permission.
Marcy was so angry about that which I heard directly from right hand man in the district that she called Ben and told him to stop the calls, personally called Copeland and Wagener to apologize, and even attended a fundraiser for Wagener to show support for him.
Again, another question of Ben's ethics.
My whole point on Ben is this...ethics are important without a doubt. There are too many instances of corruption in Toledo/Lucas County. However, when you gave the impression that you are the only one that clean up the mess, you open yourself up to scrutiny and in my mind, Ben doesn't hold up well.
And the last point is, Ben has been critical of George but why not Wade? Why not Bob McCloskey - I remember on Toledo Talk someone was upset because Ben refused to comment on Bob and when he did, it was very non-critical? Why not his aunt Sandy? Why is it that only republicans in Ben's world are unethical?
And I just can't help but wonder, if George would have last year lived in Allen County and moved back to Lucas County with the Blade in his backpocket to avenge his aunt's defeat four years earlier, would Ben have called George a carpetbagger? Would Ben have held a press conference attacking George's ties to the community? Would Ben have had a statement wanting George to sign about residence? In my opinion, the answer is YES!
The person I spoke with at Marcy's office wasn't angry or upset.
Ben is not an A or B Team, he's a Democrat.
This was almost all stated during the primary. We are still in a situation where we have one candidate who is talking about plans and one who talks about how he gets along with everyone.
George is not going to be like Maggie Thurber when it comes to many things, one of them would be going to the public to keep them informed.
I'm not going to slam George because that's not the purpose of this blog nor do I think that's helpful. Had my first choice which was Ben not won, I most likely would be supporting George. I believe Ben is the better choice, if you don't? That's fine, however it's interesting that once again we have nothing on the real issues and basically why this whole post was written. Only one person is catching "heat" and it's not even being based on their actual work ethics or their campaign.
The only plus is I think we have just about ended the Aunt Sandy aspect of the discussion and very few seem to care that George made a false statement. That bothered me and it should bother you whether you support him or not.
I know who you are, anonymous, and your initials are G.S.
Keep posting lies and I'll reveal your identity, Mr. Sorontu... whoops!
Jeremy,
Not George but let me ask you...are you one of Ben's law students who he paid to work on the campaign? Did you get an A in his class?
Just curious....
I'm not in law school and I live in NY. I met Ben Konop once when I lived in Toledo and spoke with him on the phone on "The Nookular Option" (http://www.nookularoption.com) radio show. He's a great guy, and you'd like him if you took some time off from telling false stories about him and demonizing him.
BTW, I love your insinuations and use of Rovian syntax.
Let me take a page out of your... er... Rove's book, George:
"I hear George Sarantou likes punching war orphans in the face and paying local hospitals NOT to treat kids with leukemia."
Let's see what you do with that, slimeball.
P.S.
By the way, I'm going to keep referring to you as "George" unless you come out and say who you are. Only rat-bastards and slimeballs don't identify themselves when making accusations and projecting hatred. That's the same reason why Ku Klux Klan members wear hoods.
By the way, Lisa, I tempered the original comment I wanted to post. I brought it down a notch out of respect for your wonderful blog.
For the record, I have never taken a class with Ben Konop, nor have I been paid by him to help with any campaign activities.
I'd suspect that the overwhelming majority of Konop supporters and primary voters can say the same thing.
Anonymous, I'm willing to do some additional investigation into some of the claims you're making, which I'll blog about or do a piece for the show. I hope you'll keep an open mind. If you don't want to vote for Ben, that's fine, but I honestly think Ben's a better guy than you think he is.
Considering you're speaking to a fellow Dem, don't you think a better approach would have been to simply state your case, instead of attacking my integrity and objectivity by accusing me of being a mindless Konop-bot? If you are going to use this forum as a platform attack Ben, don't you expect Konop's supporters to respond to your criticisms?
And, Jeremy's got a couple of good points. First, anonymous attacks are the least respectable kind. I might add that anonimity also makes it tougher for us to team up on issues we DO agree on.
Second, as I pointed out earlier, everyone has detractors. If you think Anita Lopez has the scoop on "the real Ben Konop", you better believe that you are gonna run into people who will insist THEY know the "real George Sarantau". I'm not going to make a claim like that, because I don't personally know the guy. Frankly, from during the televised debate, he was my second favorite amongst the candidates.
Sure, as Lisa Renee pointed out in this post, George made some factually incorrect assertions about Ben's aunt. I'll step up to defend Ben, as Lisa did. But that doesn't mean I think Sarantau is the devil's son. That's just politics.
Hey Don, defend this.
If Ben didn't screw up, why did Marcy show up to Tim's fundraiser?
It's that damn "ethic's pledge" prop that Ben's shoving down everyone's throat that's going to be his undoing in this campaign.
I'm not Don, (yeah we all know that) :-) but the answer to that question is Marcy would have done the same for all three if asked she typically doesn't take a position in a primary.
:-)
Brian,
That's a good question. Lisa Renee (sharp, that one) brought this issue to my attention a while ago, and we didn't get all of the information we would have liked.
For instance, who here has actually heard one of the messages? Did Ben claim to have Marcy's explicit endorsement, or did he merely drop her name?
The distinction is important, and here's why: First, Ben worked as an intern for Marcy when he was younger. Second, Marcy was the one who tapped Ben to run for Congress against Mike Oxley in Lima. Given that background, Ben may have assumed he would be her favorite, and thought it OK to drop her name in an ad. Either way, using Marcy's name at all was an error in judgment. Marcy was understandably concerned about any appearance of her playing favorites early in the race. I haven't heard, however, that Marcy considers Ben's "screw-up" to be unforgivable. Maybe she is that angry, I don't know.
On the other hand, maybe Marcy fully intended to back Ben. Ben, in his competitive zeal to win the primary, over-reached by playing the "Marcy card" in the primary. Marcy ran some damage control to make sure that Copeland and Wagener wouldn't hold anything against her (she's got her own base of support to consider). By the time September rolls around, she'll forgive Ben's error in judgment and give her official endorsement. That's a possible scenario, isn't it?
Of course, I'm inclined to give Ben the benefit of the doubt because I'm a supporter, and you and anonymous are assuming the worst because you don't like the guy. That being said, I'll look into this a bit more. Fair enough?
Thanks Don, but you did a fine job with what you posted.
I've always felt that the ethics pledge began when the candidate announced his/her run for office.
I never understood the need for a prop. Xxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx.
Xxx Lisa? Xxx rock!
OK. I've got some more info on the automated messages. In the text of the message, Ben mentioned that he "worked" for Marcy. Which is true. Ben worked for Marcy as a congressional page, and later as a staffer. So, Ben was citing his resume, not falsely claiming an official endorsement.
The message became an issue when Wagener complained to Marcy's people. They asked Ben to stop running the message because Marcy did not want to alienate Wagener or Copeland. My source also informs me there is no bad blood between Marcy and Ben.
There was some smoke here, but no ethical fire. At worst, Ben unintentionally put Marcy in an uncomfortable spot by factually citing his resume.
Brian, I couldn't agree more. Ethics should be an intrinsic aspect of public service. But, every campaign needs a prop, and an ethics pledge is better than most. For instance, imagine a crowd of Konop supporters waving 3-foot high white letter "K's". Ick.
Thanks, W.D.,
I didn't know that Marcy received one of the automated messages herself. But I do seem to remember Wagener bringing this up at a press conference. Also, my info about Wagener complaining to Marcy's people comes (albeit second-hand) from one of Marcy's aides. But no matter, I think we have a better idea of what happened here. Most of my initial impressions turned out to be correct. At worst, Ben's use of Marcy's name in this context amounts to an error in judgment. To call it "unethical" seems to cross the line into the realm of hyperbole.
We also now know that Ben still has Marcy's support. Don't be surprised to see a friendlier tone develop between Konop, Copeland and Wagener over the next month or so.
If you're still undecided about who to support, stop by a campaign event to have a chat with Ben. He'll be at Rally by the River tomorrow, and at a parade in Point Place at noon on Saturday.
Not via phone or email yet.
Post a Comment