Curious about where the public stands on the individuals in this election...
If the election were held today, who would you vote for?
Does it matter to you where their campaign money is coming from?
Jeff Krabill !!!!
Murray because you like him - or Murray because you don't like Krabill?
Why do you prefer Murray?
Whitlanbrock, same goes for you. What do you like about Krabill?
It would appear most of Mr. Krabill's big contributions come from doctors or their spouses who work at North Coast Cancer Care.
That's fine, doctors tend toward being Republican for a variety of reasons, but how is having a few rich people give to you as a block (or do they have a full-on PAC) substantially better than having an organization that represents lots of middle class people give to you?
Here is a link on Bettcher's political donations.
I guess there's no difference other than one person recieved more smaller donations from individuals while the other received large donations from unions.
Hussein, you assume that Murray's donations are less politically desireable than Krabill's. Why do you assume that?
I guess there's no difference other than one person recieved more smaller donations from a group of wealthy doctors who all work in the same building while the other received large donations from the anti-business socialist menace.
Krabill's donations don't just come from any private individuals. They aren't random citizens motivated by the purity of Krabill's cause. His donors are just as suscpect as Union money, maybe even more perfidious in that he and they are attempting to pass themselves off as some sort of grass roots movement.
Do his wife and daughter work for these doctors? What are the connections there?
Why his funding sources matters is because of how he is attempting to portray them. If he had come out and said, "my donations come from my wife's business associates and family friends," that would be one thing. Saying "i get my donations from private individuals," is another.
Will he do better than Enderle? Maybe by a point or two.
My point was that you're assuming that Murray taking from special interests is a PR problem.
You believe that taking money from unions is a bad thing?
If we had more income equality we wouldn't need special interests and unions.
Brutus, who do you favor? Krabill or Murray?
Murray, because he has the interests of the people 1st.
And your opinion of Mr. Murray's involvment with the Marina District?
None of the above.
Mr. Krabill exhibited extremely poor judgement in supporting the Marina District project's "developer" without being sure that he was properly vetted. Mr. Krabill was not bothered by the fact that Mr. Eymann refused to produce a resume or identify his equity partners. Eymann, as we eventually learned, had never developed anything. Mr. Krabill also pressured the city commission to disregard the city charter and ram through the Marina District as emergency legislation. While I like Mr. Krabill personally, until he can show that he has learned from these mistakes, I cannot support him for a position of public trust.
I have to agree with AJ Oliver's post. However, that does not diminish Mr. Murray's culpability in the Marina Disctrict debacle. A non-binding advisory vote, an in-house ethics opinion, the last minute release of a project favorable study, a blocked referendum and a whole lot more took place. If both Mr. Krabil and Mr. Murray were not involved in the various aspects, you can bet one or the other was.
Bryan, while I appreciate you asking people not only who they support and why, but who they DON'T support and why, there are some answers that are frankly so predictable they're not worth getting. A.J. Oliver will never vote for other than a Democrat unless, of course, there's a bona fide socialist on the ticket. And Brutus? I strongly suspect that Jesus Christ could return and, if he ran as a Republican, wouldn't get a vote from Brutus.
I personally try very hard to educate myself sufficiently prior to every election so that I don't depend on a letter following a name. In fact, if I'm not sure of a given race, I won't vote for EITHER candidate rather than ignorantly voting for the WRONG candidate.
Frankly, if I could wave a magic wand, we'd see Libertarians elected to office. Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism. In other words, complete feedom within the realm of personal responsibility and not infringing the rights of others. I don't find either major political party too palatable in that regard these days. Both insist they've got my best interests at heart, but both seem to betray the Constitution -- and my liberty -- at the first available opportunity following their election.
If either Murray or Krabill is willing to sign a binding agreement to the effect that, should they in any instance fail to uphold the Bill of Rights, they'll resign; if one would sign a contract saying he won't ever vote to raise taxes but will instead limit government growth and spending and actively work to shrink all three, not only would I VOTE for that candidate, I'd CAMPAIGN for that candidate. I'm not holding my breath...
I know what you're sayin' Sam.
I was about to point out that while Krabill pushing the Marina District was "poor judgement" (extremely poor judgement? Kinda strong wording, wouldn't ya say?) Oliver chooses to say nothing about what Murray did while serving in an official capacity on the city commission.
Oliver's response suggests what you're saying about him is true. It's okay for Murray to do certain things because of the (D) behind his name - while it's "extremely poor judgement" for Krabill (R) to merely support the project in a private capacity?
It suddenly struck me: Those politicians who are elected DO take a binding oath when they take office. They swear to uphold the Constitution. Given that I can think of a grand total of maybe TWO in the entire Congress who've actually done so, perhaps binding agreements aren't quite what they used to be.
I vote no to either one. Dumpster Don would be a better candidate than these two combined. How about a third candidate that doesn't have a D or R behind their name? Over 140 years ago, we had a civil war between the North and the South. Today we still have a civil war between the Democrats and the Republicans and nothing gets done except for the fighting. Get rid of both parties and only have independents. That way, voters choose a person and not a party.
Salvatore, how do you propose to "get rid" of the existing political parties?
Several of you raise valid points. We should not support candidates just because they have a D or R (or L) by their names. I do not do that, and never have. Mr. Murray was wrong to back the Marina District as long as he did. He should have known better. But in the end, his position was to "let the political process take its course", so when the citizens gathered signatures to put the MD on the ballot, he did not intervene. It was Mr. Krabill and Sandusky Now that advocated throwing the city charter under the bus by re-passing that turkey of a deal as an emergency and squashing a public vote.
I also have to say that, while I still disagree with Mr. Murray in a number of areas (education policy, for example), I have to admit that he has worked hard, and has become extremely well informed on issues affecting this district - especially environmental issues.
Mr. Murray has also taken a stand against the Yacht Club water rights give away. He went out of his way to do that, securing an opinion from the Ohio Ethics Commission to the effect that he has no conflict of interest on that issue, and can speak out publicly. Mr. Murray has paid a price for taking on the local oligarchy in this matter, and I respect him for that. Where does Mr. Krabill stand on this issue? All I hear from him so far is Tea Party rhetoric.
Folks, the nature of politics, and the human condition, is that you are never going to agree with your elected reps one hundred percent of the time - just like you don't always agree with your husband and/or wife all the time. While demanding honesty and open government, we still have to work with what we have.
I wish I knew more about Krabill, he could possibly be worse than Murray but I think I'll take the chance. The Murrays paid absolutely nothing for their place on Shoreline Dr. "Supposedly" they didn't pay the Toledo Co. for the huge oak doors because they didn't match the trim. We all know the lawsuits over the Marina breakwall. He has failed to represent a Veterans group in Columbus. It looks like he wasted little time in becoming one of the "Good Ole Boys". He represented a Toledo man against a Sandusky company. I personally talked to one of the jurors and she said they weren't able to figure why he even took the case. Murray and his client "LOST" but the Sandusky companies insurance had to pay thousands for representation. If it benefits you and any one of the Murrays, then Dennis is your man but if you need a guy to represent you, look elsewhere. I didn't mean in one of our local kangaroo courts.
Here is a question for the die-hard party backers:
You are in South Carolina and walk into the polls on election day. For Senator, you have two choices
Your job as a voter is to pick to the best person to represent your state. So tell us who you would vote for and please explain why you chose who you chose
sam a, what freedoms have you lost and who took them?
pete, they are both losers. I would right in a candidate.
pete, now one for you, Golf pro Boehner or West Point Grad Justin Coussoule?
The reason being is that the R's have to take back control of one of the Chambers. I don't relish the thought of him becoming Speaker if they do. But we cannot have one party in control. Things get shifted too far one direction.
Hey SamAdams; Thank you for that post! It would serve the D's and R's well too start LISTENING to the people/taxpayer/voters! I for one do just what you said, learn about the candidates and their objectives. On that note, I'm looking forward to hearing what Judy Kayden from Wakemen is all about, cause I already know where Murray and Krabill stand, and have seen the effects it''s had on this community!! Will the SR cover this women prior to voting day, helping to inform the public as to her ideologies? I certainly hope so! They shouldn't dismiss an unknown Libertarian, as I'm hoping more people are becoming independent in how they vote., I know I have.
Truth or Dare and all commenters:
We'll be better served if we keep these threads on topic. Truth or Dare, you say that you "know" where Murray and Krabill stand. Perhaps you could share your knowledge with the rest of us? (Because that's what this thread is supposed to be about.) I'm interested in hearing your take on both of them....
I read Truth or Dare's Blog. I could be "WRONG" but I interpreted his post to mean that he isn't happy or satisfied with either candidate. I tend to agree after reading what many are saying about Krabil. I don't live in Sandusky and to be honest, I forgot about past dealings and actions.
The whole libertarian concept deserves a new thread. Think I'll start one now...
I would like to see more people share their opinion on Krabill and Murray. I think it's an important race and people will be seeking more information.
George Washington warned about political parties (factions) in his Farewell Address. http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html Get rid of the factions and return the government to the people as it was meant to be. Factions like the Democrats and Republicans have destroyed this once great nation.
Mr. Duboise, you said "it would better serve us to stay on topic"? K.
If the election were today, I wouldn't be voting for either Murray or Krabill. Why? All's one need do is pay attention to city/township/county/statewide news, let alone national. Quite a few postings here have hit on issues that make me vote the way I do. Re-read Mr. Oliver's post on 8/10 @ 12:11. His last paragraph pretty much sums up how I think/ feel as a taxpayer/voter regarding politics. I believe he also touched on "public trust".
Do I care where their campaign financing comes from? Let's be real sir, it's called lobbying, and both sides of our two-party system have an agenda., as do new up and coming parties. Over the last 20 yrs. I've grown to be a middle of the road kinda person, a little bit of everything so to speak, so where does that leave me, politically speaking? Everyone has an agenda, myself included.
Being an open minded individual, I'm more than willing to acknowledge my own bias. You see, I haven't contributed monetarily to any politician or particular political party, even the one I'm registered to vote under, exercising that RIGHT of which I greatly appreciate and respect, and haven't done so since the blow job in the Whitehouse BS! Instead, I consciously chose to donate that money to charities, especially those helping children. choosing those that use a majority of the $$$$'s raised for their purpose, rather than Administration. If a politician wants my vote, they're gonna have to earn it by at least being pretty insinc w/how I think and feel about our world, our country, and they'll keep it by living up to their campaign promises, at least to the best of their abilities and especially regarding the important issues, such as our WarS, our Environment, U.S./Foreign Policy, Education, Healthcare, Green energy, the freakin Deficit & wasteful spending of Taxpayer $$$'s, shall I go on? All #1 issues!
Truth or Dare,
I agree with you. The sad part is that the candidate you describe, and the one I think we'd both willingly vote for, is one who can't win. That's one reason I don't bother running for office (something I HAVE actually considered).
People don't want to hear the facts or to face reality. They want to hear what they want to hear, and they want to get everything that they can for nothing. The politician who says those pretty words, and who promises largesse from the treasury (or favors or whatever), is the one who's going to win. And of course, any politician who'd lie to get elected, and distribute favors and funds in a manner outside the limits of the Constitution, is precisely the typical kind of politician we've got. Which, to sum up, is itself the problem that got us where we are right now.
BOTTOM LINE: If you're sick and tired of politics as usual, STOP VOTING FOR THE USUAL POLITICIANS!
That's too bad Samantha, you should run for office, otherwise you'll never know whether or not you would make it! There is an old saying that goes something like this. "tis betterr to have tried & failed, than to have never tried at all".........and ya never know, someone like me who'se eyes have been opened for quite sometime to all of the poltical BS, just might vote in someone new. Please understand, I don't vote for a candidate based upon what they can give me for nothing! Never have. We work too hard for what we have, expecting the same from our government representatives that we help support! It's way past the time people wake up to reality, cause it's certainly slapping the majority of us in the U.S. in the face, isn't it,? I vote my conscience, cause I have to live w/that choice and it's impact on our area, state, nation, not to mention the world as a whole!
It's imperative that if you're a provider of news/information, it'll best serve the voting public to cover all candidates and not be so quick to dismiss unkowns.
Once again, I agree with you. Unfortunately, there's a woefully ignorant (and often civics-uneducated) contingent with a level of civic involvement that doesn't go past voting for the candidate and party they're told to vote for. ACORN ring any bells?
As far as me personally running for office, let me tell you my idea for Phase I of saving the City money and gaining better service while we're at it: PRIVATIZE.
Privatize the parks and rec folks -- give the current employees and managers a couple of years as their own company and getting the same wages to aid in their transition. And after those couple of years, let them bid on the job like everybody else. You don't do the work, or don't do it well enough, you get fired, just like everybody else. And without all of the political claptrap going on behind the scenes, if you DO do the work, you'll do it better, more efficiently, and for less money all told. Now how popular am I right now, eh?
Privatize the water and sewer facilities. A town in New Jersey did just that a few years back, and it turned out they got better quality water and more efficient service, all for less money. But imagine how hard City workers would fight against actually having to perform competitively!
Like I said, I couldn't get elected. But thanks for the encouragement, LOL!
Stop electing attorneys to office.
Just when I thought their was hope for you sam a you bring up the ACORN lie. Nobody in acorn told anyone who to vote for. The whole briethbart and faux news thing was a sham. And if anyone goes to jail, it will be the 2 stooges breithbart hired and hopefully Andrew Breithbart himself. And I hope Shirley Sherrod takes his very last penny.
Our electric, gas, cable, phone are all privatized. How's that working out? Everyone envys our municipal electric rates.
Brutus, you're confusing ACORN with the NAACP. The latter is where Sherrod gave the speech that got her in trouble. ACORN is the folks that registered all sorts of fake voters (as Dems, natch) and that told people how to enslave 14 year-old illegal aliens into lives of sexual servitude without paying taxes on the income generated.
Sandusky's electric rates aren't municipal. They're private. The rates were negotiated with the City which, because it had the clout of numbers of subscribers behind it, was able to get a lower bid. If I recall, the City of Clyde DOES have municipal electric (or did). Doubtless others here can clarify that.
sam a, I am not confusing anything. Andrew Breithbart had a part in both. Show me where someone was convicted from ACORN. Before you call someone out on something at least have the facts to back it up.
And who said I was talking about Sandusky? I think you have a problem or something.