Wednesday, November 04, 2015

No On Issue 22 Got More Votes than Cranley For Mayor

The Mayor John Cranley scheme to create a political slush fund went down in defeat last night. To add an additional insult to the Mayor, more people voted against the Mayor's pet issue (34,246), than voted for the Mayor two years ago, (33,428). The voter turnout was higher this year as well. The vote totals for the 2013 race are official, but the No on 22 votes is unofficial and based on not having any provisional votes included, therefore that number should only go up.

Cranley will need to work on getting his GOP vote back for 2017, since he lost that this round.  I think this should remove the last sliver of faux doubt from the Cranley backers claiming he didn't win in 2013 on backs of the GOP voters.

Other than John Cranley, the other big local loser was the Hamilton County Board of Elections. They did not have their act together and that forced a local judge to order the polls stay open an additional 90 minutes.  New technology is never something to not promote to the public.  I had no idea the process changed, and I do honestly pay pretty close attention to such things.  The Local media didn't seem to have that story either.  Our voting process needs a big change.  It won't get that until the state stops being controlled by Republicans bent on voter suppression.

Thursday, October 08, 2015

Cranley Gets the Enquirer to Edit Article

Not a big surprise, but Mayor John Cranley was able to get the Enquirer to pull and edit a story that he initially refused to provide a comment. The article makes this admission subtlety:
Cranley, who initially declined comment but reversed course after an unedited version of this story was inadvertenly (sic) posted Sunday to Cincinnati.com, said he had nothing to do with Harris’ exit or the board appointments.
The article was originally published on Saturday and was back up yesterday after his and the City Manager Black's comments and B.S. denials. It was also conveniently  after the Mayor's awkward State of City infomercial (Cranleymerical?). We don't know how the Mayor's office was able to convince Editors at the Enquirer to make this change, but it happened in a very public and embarrassing way.

Cranley is clearly LYING when he told the Enquirer he had "nothing to do with Harris’ exit or the board appointments." We know this because of who was picked for the board. To say that those were the best choices to serve on a the Historic Conservation Board is something that would ONLY be stated by the Mayor or a member of his staff. You don't get that many Cranley donors together in one place via natural selection. Due to his legal training, Cranley likely has no email trail to Black telling him what to do, but how often do the men hold meetings or phone calls? If they do it often, which I am sure they do, why else would they be doing that if it was not a means for Cranley to tell Black what he wants done on every significant issue put before Black.  We have Mayor who is knowingly overstepping his limited power as Mayor and a City Manager who is so fearful of losing his job that he does what ever the Mayor says, even though he's not his boss.  We have dysfunctional leadership at City Hall and a fractured City Council that can't get six members to consistently stand against the Mayor's over-reaching. Mann and Flynn need to step up and stop walking the fence.

Cranley is a politician and knows how to tell a lie that won't get him into legal trouble. The more Cranley acts as Mayor the more lies we get and the worse our city becomes.