JOY For Petro
Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Attorney General Jim Petro, looking beyond his expected primary contest to the November ballot, has selected state Sen. Joy Padgett as his new running mate, The Associated Press has learned.
Padgett, a Republican from Coshocton, will be introduced Monday as Petro’s lieutenant governor candidate, a senior Petro campaign official said Sunday.
The official requested anonymity because the choice had not yet been announced. Padgett was selected because her stature in eastern Ohio was expected to help Petro in a potential faceoff with U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland, considered the likely Democratic governor’s candidate in November, the source said.
Johnny Q. Public said,
Wrote on January 30, 2006 @ 10:22 am
10 points down on Blackwell - mounting allegations on dirty fundraising, lost first LG “for the good of Hamilton County”…
Hear that? It’s Petro’s new LG warming up her vocal chords.
anon said,
Wrote on January 30, 2006 @ 11:33 pm
Fat, liberal, tax-hiking, rude Joy Padgett. That’s who I would pick.
CT said,
Wrote on January 30, 2006 @ 11:52 pm
Personal attacks are always a plus, thanks anon. Can we get some substance?
MB said,
Wrote on January 30, 2006 @ 11:54 pm
Petro People -
Take a step back and seriously review the following list about Petro.
1.) Morrison/Weber/Roetzel Pay for Play Scandal
2.) Kevin O’Brien Pay for Play Scandal
3.) SEC memo/BWC fund scandal
4.) Noe Coingate scandal
5.) Politically calculated switch from Pro-Abortion to Anti-Abortion after losing an election / 1998 NARAL endorsement
6.) Supports gay marriage, opposed Issue 1, opposed Ohio DOMA
7.) Supported Taft tax increases and Budget, supported penny sales tax increase
8.) Columbus Republican insider
9.) CAP spending proposal - should I imitate Ken or be against Ken?
10.)Heimlich’s loss in confidence and exodus (Symbolizes conservative loss in confidence)
11.)Use of Clinton fundraiser and plaintiff lawyer Stanley Chesley
12.)From the Blackwell Website:
“With candidates like Jim Petro, who needs Democrats?”
Now, put yourself in the position of Jim’s opponent. If it was February and you had:
- more money than your opponent
- more ability to raise money than your opponent
- a lead in the polls
- and this much ammunition
What would your next move be?
I know that you know the answer to this question. For the sake of the party and the sake of your candidate’s political future, make an appeal to your guy to drop out and avoid the embarrassment and the damage he will do to the Republican name in Ohio.
By the way, this was only the short list. Ted Strickland already has a much longer and considerably more damning list.
anon said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 12:03 am
If they are true, how are they a personal attack. She is liberal. In fact, conservatives have challenged her in primaries.
She is fat, look at her picture. She is rude, I’ve spoken with her.
She is a tax-hiker. She voted for every Taft tax hike and all of the Voinovich ones.
Publius said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 12:05 am
Don’t forget Joy’s work on conceal carry.
anon said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 12:41 am
We’re lucky we have concealed carry with her. Some would argue that current law is worse than it was before.
Anonymous said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 12:53 am
MB - I could accumulate a bunch of really bad crap about your candidate, too. Even more if I’m considering things that are unrelated to your candidate, he said/he said/politically motivated claims, or untruths. The Petro camp won’t do that because they refuse to be negative and unethical in their campaigning. The character of the Blackwell campaign is shocking - the negativity coming out to hurt his own party is disgraceful.
As for your list, as you know, 1 and 2 are dishonest he said/he said claims from questionable sources with political motivations. 3 and 4 are unrelated, but seen as negatives for ALL Republicans. 5 was not politically motivated - he had an opinion change, just like Blackwell has had in his past. 6 - Petro does not support gay marriage, but he also does not support poorly written legislation. Quotes from the period show that he would support anti-gay marriage legislation if it was written so that it wouldn’t attract legal work to defend (ie. Miami Univ). 7 he supported a balanced budget that was voted in the legislature, 8 everyone is a columbus insider - so is Ken, he’s just as much an insider as anyone, it’s just that no one likes to work with him and won’t support him. Interesting. 9 was to STOP Ken’s distructive TEL, not imitate it. 10 was helping the GOP, 11 is a moot point, and 12 is exactly the negativity I’m talking about.
If you have so much confidence in your candidate, stop the negative campaigning and let the best man win. Petro believes that’s him. He believes it’s for the best of the party, but he refuses to go down to the level that the Blackwell campaign has been at for months. Negative campaigning won’t help either candidate in the general. Strickland has plenty of ammunition for Blackwell, too, how he chooses to use it will probably be much more respectable than how low Blackwell has gone.
Publius said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 1:05 am
The CCW law we have was all that was politically possible at the time. Vermont style was not going to fly. We have a version of CCW and Ohio has not turned into the Wild West. If that history continues, it’s pretty strong evidence to support a Vermont style CCW in the future. Ohio is not a ‘radical-change’ state- and never has been.
It’s appropriate that Jim Tressel coaches in Ohio. An offensive coordinator that calls hail Mary’s on every play gets fired. Sometimes, you just have to grind it out on the ground, play D and get a few field goals. That’s the real world of public policy- not the fantasy land of talk radio and College Republican meetings.
Anon said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 1:15 am
“For the sake of the Party”
The answer’s simple, MB. Have your candidate not go negative. Make the Primary about an exchange of ideas.
Here’s a question for you though — If you were running against a candidate in your own party who you KNEW would not win a General election and would bring down the entire party’s ticket, what would you do? Ken Blackwell is that candidate.
MB said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 1:57 am
1.) Morrison/Weber/Roetzel Pay for Play Scandal
I would be willing to agree with you if the facts weren’t substantiated by not 2, not 3, but 4 independent sources.
2.) Kevin O’Brien Pay for Play Scandal
The guy is a Democrat, so immediately I was skeptical, but with the recent PD article and the signed affidavit, I’m considerably less so.
3.) SEC Memo / BWC Scandal
Petro had the memo from the SEC well ahead of this story breaking and did nothing in response. No matter how we would spin it in a general, the Democrats would eat him up.
4.) Noe Scandal
Petro had direct oversight as Auditor and as SG
5.) Calculated Conversion from Pro-abortion to Anti-Abortion
Everyone that is informed knows that Petro switched after he lost the first time as Auditor because he figured out that he had to switch to win - so he did – simple as that. Up until that fateful day, Jim Petro was passionately against those damn Christians.
6.) Opposition to Issue 1, Ohio DOMA
Once again - voters aren’t ignorant to the truth no matter how much spin is put on it. Petro made a serious mistake opposing The President on this issue. He knows it and hsi campaign knows it.
7.) Supported Taft tax increases and Budget, supported penny sales tax increase
He supported ANOTHER tax increase. Period. End of discussion. No spin. No distancing form it. He supported it.
8.) Columbus Insider
Your response doesn’t even require a counter - laughable.
9.) CAP
One minute he is anti-amendments and the next he has one of his own - weak.
10.) Heimlich getting cold feet
You’re right for once on this one. No one doubts that he felt the only way he was going to help the GOP was to get out of the race.
11.) Clinton fundraiser and plaintiff lawyer Stanley Chesley
Moot point?!? He’s in bed with a Clinton fundraiser and that’s a moot point?
12.) “With candidates like Jim Petro, who needs Democrats?”
How does this compare to the whisper campaign that Petro employees carried out on Betty? I don’t suggest a showdown on campaign tactics… you won’t win that one.
How many more of these will surface?
The concern about the Primary going negative shouldn’t be our focus. The focus should be how this information could be used by Strickland. The polls will show in the coming weeks that Ken Blackwell is the only candidate that can win in the general. He is the only candidate that represents true Republican ideals.
Anonymous said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 2:08 am
MB - I won’t bother to respond. We both believe passionately in our candidates, we both believe their sides of the story. Simple as that.
Petro can handle himself with Strickland. I don’t think he needs your tips knowing what he’s getting himself into. Blackwell can’t win the General - the only people who think he can live in SW Ohio. Legislators who have worked with him don’t like him. Democrats and Independents don’t like him. The management of his office is inefficient and costly.
I’ll say it again - if you are so confident in your candidate, stop the negative campaigning and let the best man win.
Anonymous said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 2:11 am
It sure is fun watchin y’all in a tizzy over the imminent demise of your party. Apparently pandering to religious zealots and installing a pay-to-play system aint the path to the righteous land after all. Who knew?
Anon said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 2:18 am
Looks like MB got to work today with Blackwell nervous again. ‘None of the tactics are working - not even Alex’s friends. Get on the blog and try to get him to drop out!’
There’s a reason why he’s so scared. If he really thought he was going to win, he wouldn’t have to sink so low.
Anon said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 2:26 am
MB -
Your answer on #5 shows either how uninformed you are or how you’re willing to lie. The facts surrounding #5 are well known — Petro won for Auditor in ‘94. He became Pro-Life in ‘98. Also, in regards to his religious beliefs, Petro has gone to church every Sunday for as long as I can remember. He’s never been against “those damn Christians”.
On #6, you’re also failing to mention that Voinovich and DeWine also were against Issue 1. Many Republicans in the state were. The wording on the issue has brought on numerous legal issues in the state, most recently at Miami U.
Your points 7 - 12 are ridiculous, and I’m not going to take the time to respond.
Now, I do agree that Petro should answer for 1 - 4. but 1 and 2 are really the same issue, “pay to play”, an issue that has plagued every AG in recent times. The timing of the PD article seems politically motivated. I’ve heard from people that the writer has been on a mission and hasn’t found much other than stuff that which Archinokoff’s people spread. Also, she wants Petro to lose expressly because she believes that Blackwell will lose and the result will be the crumbling of the Republican Party in Ohio and a blow to Christian Conservatives. Even reading her reporting of the Petro LG announcement, it’s hard to think that she doesn’t have an agenda.
Ken O’Brien has lied under oath before, and if I’m not mistaken the Petro fundraiser in question has also done an affidavit countering the story. Knowing Petro, I don’t believe he would be involved in Pay to play stuff, in fact, I’ve heard that half of the Special Councils are firms that did not donate to Petro’s campaign.
Issue 3 and 4 are going to plague Blackwell as well. As are a host of minor stories like the ones you’ve listed for Petro. It’s an unfortunate fact that the truth of alot of these points isn’t what matters, but the political damage that can be waged because of them. Pinning the Taft administration’s failings on Petro isn’t fair, but the Democrats will certainly do it. They’ll pin them on Blackwell if they have the chance too.
MB said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 2:27 am
Good try - not an employee of any campaign or public sector.
Christian Conservative said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 2:34 am
We’re watching how the Petro camp trashes us and if Petro wins there’s no compelling reason for us to vote for him. We’ll just sit it out-thank you. And, please stop swearing at us.
Anon said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 3:19 am
Christian Conservative - what are you talking about? Petro has never said anything negative. This is just ridiculous.
Anonymous said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 3:30 am
I’m starting to notice that every mean or hateful thing on a conservative blog comes from a Blackwell supporter.
“Candidate of the haters” — that’s a good way to get elected. lol
Christian Conservative said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 3:36 am
The poltical elite use us when they need our vote but they won’t embrace Christian Conservatives for office in Ohio. We’re for Ken and if Ken does not win the primary we will sit it out. We don’t buy the squishy campaign commercials either-don’t keep patronizing us. What you do speaks louder than what you say (i.e, coming out against Issue One). We want Ken and if we don’t get Ken we sit it out.
Zogby said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 3:50 am
Christian Conservative is correct….we will sit it out if we don’t get our turn. From Taft to Voinovich to Dewine and more, we are SICK of RINOs. We won’t turn out only to vote for the “lesser of two evils.”
Anonymous said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 3:59 am
Ken Blackwell is just a con artist. He campaigns like a conservative, but he runs his office and spends like a liberal. Take a look at his real record before you take the bait.
Anon said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 4:10 am
Christian Conservative - there are plenty of religious conservatives who think Ken’s message isn’t what they’re looking for. There are many who find his negative, dirty campaign tactics against the Christian philosophy. Petro has plenty of religious conservative supporters, so I know that you don’t speak for many of them. However, if you decide to sit it out, obviously that is your right as an American. There will be plenty of other moderate and independent voters that would never vote for Blackwell, which is why his chances in the general are so bleak. The small percentage of Christian Conservatives that you represent wouldn’t do nearly the damage by ’sitting out’ as the independents and moderates will do voting Dem, if Blackwell gets the GOP nod.
Christian Conservative said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 4:22 am
Anon, Go tell that to George Bush who would not be your President right now without our support. He knows how many of us there are! We don’t typically voice our opinions because we don’t really care about politics….but we do vote…but not this year if Ken is not the nominee.
Anonymous said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 4:26 am
“WAAAAAHHH!”
Rod Parsley said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 4:59 am
Voting for Ken will eliminate abortions and the gays. Those who vote for flip-flop Jim look forward to a eternity of damnation.
PS> Buy a book from my website!
Anon. said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 5:11 am
After the nasty and personal attacks on Joy I read on here make me not want to vote for KB if he wins. Knock it off people. Keep it professional please. Attack the woman’s platform- not things that have nothing to do with an educated debate. Keep it intelligent. Unless pettiness is all you got?
VikingSpirit said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 5:39 am
Go look at some of the attacks from Petro supporters on Alex Arshinkoff…
Both Petro and Blackwell supporters are guilty of stupid personal attacks.
CincyJeff said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 6:08 am
Anon, I missed where you condemned the personal attacks on Alex Arshinkoff and the attempts to transfer his alleged personal issues over to Ken Blackwell. I suppose you’re so sickened by those attacks that you’ll no longer vote for Petro/Heimlich…..I mean Petro/Padgett?
Anon said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 9:53 am
I think those few that made low-brow comments about Arshinkoff apologized. The rest of the comments about Arshinkoff just state that he is a known enemy of Petro and that his tactics are sketchy. Criticizing a known enemy is one thing, personally bashing a woman who hasn’t done anything negative toward the Blackwell campaign is different. While I think Arshnikoff would do anything to hurt Petro - and has even said so - I never said anything personally insulting against Arshnikoff. I think those who mentioned things about his personal life, as it’s been published in newspapers, did apologized for going over the line.
MB said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 11:21 am
That’s really easy to say when you’re hiding behind “anon.” Why don’t you come up with an obscure name like anon1 or anon2 so you can at least distinguish yourself from the so called “others.”
MC said,
Wrote on January 31, 2006 @ 11:26 am
I’ll go by my initials. - Anon.