From the daily archives: Wednesday, September 14, 2011

In case you missed it yesterday, the Republican caucus appointed a replacement for disgraced Ohio State Rep Robert Mecklenborg (you might have read about him on Plunderbund a time or two).  What skilled legislator did they bring in to help restore their image?  Louis F. Terhar.  That’s right, THE Louis F. Terhar.

<crickets>

Go ahead and ask — who the hell is Louis Terhar?

Basically, he’s just a regular businessman.  Nothing that remarkable, to be honest, except for his most notable qualification for the job – his wife.

According to the Politics Extra blog […]

Full Story...

Apparently, Building a Better Ohio will accept an endorsement from anyone, so long as their job allows them to wear an uniform.  Today, the Building a Better Ohio campaign apparently found it newsworthy to note that it has gotten the endorsement of Hamilton County Sheriff Si Leis (R).  Except Leis didn’t wear his uniform for the event.  Si Leis used to be a county prosecutor back in the 1970s.   You might recall him being played by James Carville in The People v. Larry Flynt.  Leis prosecuted Flynt on obscenity charges over Hustler magazine only to have some hippie appellate court […]

Full Story...

Fake Police Officer Endorses Issue 2

On September 14, 2011 By

If you watch WeAreOhio‘s ads or check out their YouTube channel or talk to any of their supporters you’ll see real fire fighters and real police officers and real teachers talking about the negative impacts of SB5/Issue 2.

Better Ohio? Not so much.

Instead, they’ve had to resort to the use of stock photo pictures of actors dressed up like police officers for their ads.

This is from their latest mailer:

There are a few major things wrong with this ad.

First, the use of a police officer image is deceptive. Local, state and national […]

Full Story...

The second ad from We Are Ohio that largely focuses on our Senate staffer raises story:

The ad very carefully uses the phrase “exploits” a loophole.  But what the ad omits is that the loophole they refer to is one that was not created by SB 5, and thus, will still exist if Issue 2 fails.  For your convenience, here’s a copy of the relevant portion of SB 5 referenced in the bill (revising R.C. 124.14(B):

But as shown from this provision of SB 5, this loophole existed before SB 5 was […]

Full Story...

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!