Stainbrook’s quest to end the culture of corruption off to questionable start…
Jon Stainbrook stated that he was running for the Chair of the Lucas County Republican Party because he wanted to end the “culture of corruption” that he felt existed within the Party. As we are all aware, the record of one person was used as an example of this to question the leadership decisions of the former Chair of the Party, Bob Reichert. In addition another party member, former party chair Dennis Lange’s record was discussed in the past, in relation to the discussion about the need for change.
Did things change? The new Executive & Central Committee leadership have at least 70* cases listed with charges ranging from traffic to liens to petty theft/drug paraphernalia, bad check charges, garnishments and nonpayment of taxes. Nineteen of the 70 cases are related to Jon Stainbrook. This is only in Toledo Municipal Court and in Lucas County Common Pleas Court, this does not include any traffic or other cases in Sylvania, Maumee or Oregon and it does not include any of the lawsuits connected to Jon Stainbrook in Lucas County Common Pleas Court.
As a comparison, the former leadership had 25* cases in Toledo Municipal Civil & Criminal/Traffic, the majority of these charges are traffic, the criminal charges included items related to dog ownership and taxes. Fourteen of the 25 cases were related to Dennis Lange, some of those were related to a business he owned but I included them. That number doesn’t include Joanne Wack, since she is no longer employed by the Lucas County Republican Party, I did include her cases in the graph in a separate category to ensure this information was as balanced as possible.
Since the question is primarily in reference to the previously raised “culture of corruption” issue, I have not listed cases/charges in an individual breakdown by person on either side, nor have I at this point listed names that had not been previously mentioned. I’m certain these individuals are aware of their own pasts and the decision of who remains in what position is up to the new chair of the Lucas County Republican Party, Jon Stainbrook and the membership. While Stainbrook and his supporters have clearly demonstrated they have the same, if not higher skill set, as I have when it comes to looking up public information, there is no evidence that suggests he was aware of some of this public information. What he will do in regard to this first scenario related to his new position is the first of many challenges I’m sure he’ll face in the days to come.
*Information taken from public records available online, these are cases filed and not all resulted in a conviction or a civil award. The same search standards were used for all of those involved. In all cases as much identifying information such as DOB was used to ensure accuracy with the cross comparison done with the year of birth listed on voter data base records and the name used on the Lucas County Board of Elections website. It should be further noted that not every individual searched had a civil/criminal/traffic record. Several members of the current & former committees had only traffic citations or no cases found.
As to current and previous party chairs, Reichert has the least amount of a public case history, followed by Lange, then Stainbrook.
Let the floodgates open. Hopefully, an objective and rational discourse ensues.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:20 pmBut, lo, I assume this will devolve into a spat of, well Doug Haynam did this, or Joanne shredded that.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:21 pmI hope not Junior, hopefully we have all gotten the various side issues out the way by now. Which is why I didn’t want to make this about specific individuals or make assumptions beyond an equal comparison and basic facts.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:26 pmLisa, interesting post! You’re providing a service most media outlets aren’t willing to do.
I’m curious what the breakdown is on the democrat side. Maybe A team vs B team and then compared to Republican A and Republican B.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:39 pmI thought about that too Matt, it would be an interesting comparison.
I need more sleep before I can tackle that one so maybe tomorrow.
Sorry that made it sound like I expect lots, I was up till about 3:00 a.m finishing up some of the research then was up at 7:00 a.m. That’s what I meant by needing more sleep.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:50 pmIt doesn’t look so good for the “morals” party now, does it?
June 17th, 2008 at 8:31 amLisa. You are so awesome. I’ve been wanting to tell you that for a while now but it’s come time. I only read you and The Toledo Free Press now. For what it’s worth.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:45 amLisa:
I know you didn’t want to make this about individuals, but one person stands out here and that is Matt “Larry” Bartow. This is someone that is a close and personal adviser to Jon Stainbrook. This is also a person that was charged with stealing money from the very candidates that he is supposed to be helping get elected. He admitted to this theft in court and only because he did that and agreed to pay restitution is the only reason he is not a convicted felon.
Jon wanted Matt Bartow running the meeting on Saturday and while he was not stupid enough, yet, to put him up as an officer it is obvious he plays a key role in Jon’s administration. You combine that with the other research you already found and he is indeed off to a bad start.
At the meeting on Saturday one of the candidates that was directly hurt by Matt Bartow’s actions and past thefts tried to speak up and Jon called her out of order and tried to shut her up before she could say anything publicly. He will defend this guy and unless he openly denounces him and barres him from all party activities he is consorting with yet another criminal. He is the corruption, not the person to clean it out.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:34 pmTracker, we have discussed Mr. Bartow’s court experience before so I think it is fair to raise that and I do agree with you that what happened at the meeting should have come out. It’s unfortunate that the Blade reporter present did not touch on that.
Had Bartow been one of those selected for the Executive Commitee or Central Commitee it would have been a bit more difficult to not list his cases and the affect it had on some of the local republican candidates.
June 17th, 2008 at 1:17 pmI am interested to know how many of each side were dropped, because anyone could be accused of something and charged with something. But were all charges ruled on in court? To me, it looks like a lot of the charges used in making your chart were dropped or the individuals were found not guity. Anyone can be charged with anything. In preparing you chart, how many were convicted? How do you know who Stainbrook’s people are? Why didn’t you mention Reichert had a DUI charge that was reduced becuase he apperently plead it down. I heard about stainbrook’s traffic citations and, to me, it doesn’t compare to a DUI when I have had friends killed by drunk drivers. I think the dog ownership charge was Reichert’s too. I am sure many people have known about Reicherts DUI ammended charge and have not said anything.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:26 pmI can’t understand why, Lisa, you are continuing to beat the drum on this after Ms. Wack was caught attempting to destroy records.
I would like to know who gave her the key to get in the office so she could start shredding.
Was it you, Chris err tracker whatever?
June 17th, 2008 at 2:32 pmIf anyone could be charged with anything the more of us would have court cases, however, that was not the previous standard as to how many were dropped, or how many actually were garnished, etc. The concentration on both sides was done equally with what was out there on the public record as being filed. I made it a point to make sure that was clearly known since that is a factor in all of these situations on both sides…If you’d like to take the hours involved to go through each and every court case to determine what was the end result for both sides? You are more than welcome to do that, I’ve looked at almost every case so I am aware of how many ended up in garnishments or liens but I did not record that when I was going through the records. I was more concerned with making sure the case listed involved the proper person.
Reichert was mentioned previously, that’s not exactly hidden, why didn’t I go into more detail on Stainbrook’s cases or Lange’s, Bartow’s cases, etc…Simple answer…This is directly related to what was stated as a “campaign promise” that he wanted the leadership to end the culture of corruption. The question asked was did he?
Confused….if you are confused by what the purpose of this post is? I don’t think I’ll be able to shed much light since I think I made it fairly clear as to the reasoning. It also should go without saying that “Tracker” is not Chris. Chris like a few of us do post comments using our real names.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pmHey, I heard Bartow kicks cats, too! That S.O.B. Bartow is a Cat-Kicker!!
June 17th, 2008 at 3:15 pmI certainly hope that’s not true Rogue…I’d have to call PETA, immediately…
To be back to being serious for a moment, I understand completely why if I were a person who hired him to do a job and then discovered he either might not have done it or really didn’t do it, I’d not be happy with him either. It is interesting that someone who was involved in party politics and could easily be stated was connected to the Noe’s is magically not one of those that is an issue. The reason some no longer trust Bartow is directly related to his own actions as opposed to his past connections.
I’m sure some saw that as a major insult when he was selected to lead the meeting, and no matter what decision Jon makes as to the Executive Commitee/Central Committee members, these types of concerns are going to have to be addressed in one way or another if the other real goal of wanting to work together is true. As the local democratic party should demonstrate, you can’t work together if you are too busy working against each other and whoever is currently the Leadership has to lead by example, else? It fails…
June 17th, 2008 at 3:23 pmTo be sure Bartow’s presence at the meeting had to be irksome, to some, and down right galling when he was elected as Temporary Chairman. I’m told he did a very good job of running the meeting, keeping order, and running fair elections.
None of which has been mentioned, here.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:46 pmUntil now, you just did. I wasn’t there so I can only rely on what the Blade reported and others who were there have stated. I’m not sure everyone would agree with you, since it was stated that at least one person was refused the right to finish their statement but it doesn’t sound as if it was totally out of control.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:53 pmLisa said: “I don’t think I’ll be able to shed much light since I think I made it fairly clear as to the reasoning.”
I guess we have to disagree.
It makes no sense for you to ignore Ms. Wack’s new infraction. What IS your comment regarding her attempted destruction of the documents?
Did I miss your discussion about the shredding and its implications? If so I apologize.
However, you seem more interested in an alleged distortion by one medium, while using yours to push another agenda.
Seriously, doesn’t Ms. Wack’s latest shredding caper vindicate any accusations of unfair reporting by the newspaper regarding her previous problems?
June 17th, 2008 at 4:19 pmVindicate?
Ms Wack’s “new infraction”?
Was there a crime committed? Last I read there may be an investigation. And until someone somewhere with some legal credibility states that what Wack did was illegal, it’s a moot point.
Ethically? I can understand Wack’s sour grapes over Jon being elected. I’m sure Joanne wanted to wait and make sure the election had an outcome before she “took her stuff back”. And does anyone know “what was shredded”? It couldn’t be anything Jon wouldn’t pitch himself, seeing his mantra of “cleaning house” and “starting over with a clean slate” was shoved down your collective throats.
No, ethically, Jon screwed up putting a person in charge that admitted fraud to his clients in court and screwed up a few Republican campaigns with his shenanagans. To me, that speaks volumes.
Yep, the Dems in Toledo have absolutely nothing to fear from Republicans for a while.
I really do wonder if some of you people even know what you’re talking about while you prop up your “hero”. lol
June 17th, 2008 at 4:34 pmAlso, I think Joann Wack’s record is pertinent, becuase she was the first to point the finger when, way back in January, she was calling someone else a “theif” (sp.). I find this very IRONIC because she was convicted and served time for felony theft.
Whatever Boartow did or did not do, at least he made restitution. There is no record of Wack making restitution. She is currently elected to the county GOP and the State GOP. I believe a felon can’t hold office if they have not made complete restitution under OHIO LAW. Don’t you think that if she had made restitution, she would present the evidence to prove it?
If Wack would lie under oath about her past, she would lie to get herself out of anything. As has been reported, she was only asked in court about her past because she claimed she was an expert in the candidacy requirements to hold an elected position. If she were an expert, she herself would have known that felons who have not made restitution as required by OHIO LAW are not eligible ot hold elected positions. Either she was not an expert on candidacy requirements, or she was well aware of the fact that she couldn’t hold her elected positions due to her felony. Wack chose to commit perjury, lying about her felony conviction more than once. She only told the truth after documents were presented. The attorneys were trying to disprove her credibility and were successful. Her past crime was not brought up because of her past, it was brought up to prove that she either was not an expert on candidacy requiremnts or was not a credible witness and will lie to avoid embarassment or attack someone else.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:41 pmFirst, “confused” this post has nothing to do with any claim documents were shredded, beyond Junior stating he hoped it did not turn into that.
Hence, at this point it’s a non story beyond assumptions and I’d prefer to concentrate on what is known at this point. I’m fairly positive given the Blade’s past history that if this was a huge issue they would be actively pursuing it. Since I have no knowledge or evidence that any laws were broken or that documents that were not allowed to be shredded were shredded or even shredded, that’s why I haven’t blogged about it. I don’t typically blog about things based totally on assumptions.
Lastly, this isn’t about Wack anymore beyond Jon’s promise that he was going to change things using her as an example. Jon Stainbrook is now in charge of the party and re-hashing the past rather than dealing with the present only tries to prevent discussion on the current moment and what needs to be done.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:46 pm“Was there a crime committed?”
Ask that of Lisa regarding her “cases/charges” she’s been listing. As Rogue mentioned, what were the convictions?
And the answer is yes! Wack was convicted and was caught lying on the witness stand in court.
So, maybe you need to know what you’re talking about.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:50 pmDevil’s advocate?
ummm…huh?
So freaking what that restitution was made. There were members of the Republican Party that put their faith in their campaign into this man’s hands and he failed them because he ripped off his clients.
Period.
How do you make “restitution” to these politicans that failed in their elections? How would you know that if Bartow actually did what he was paid to do that the outcomes of these elections wouldn’t have had a different resolution?
Wack is whacked for what she did with Jon’s list. But that dosen’t change the fact that the newly elected leader put into power an individual that has already proven that he is a failure.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:50 pmConfused or now not so confused. Please read the rules for posting on this site. It includes providing a valid email address. If you want to use some sort of service to change your ip address every time you post that’s your choice. However…it clearly states you must provide a valid email address that’s not traditionally recognized as a service such as the one you are using is.
As previously stated, if you want to do the work in going through each and every case for both sides and do a thorough accounting of what the end result was, you are welcome to.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:58 pmConfused, be assured that I know what I’m talking about.
And a big “duh” on your statement. I read the Wack episode on the web.
But your hero put into power a person that has already proven he is willing to screw over fellow Republicans to further advance his own wealth. You missing that or are you just this focused on Joanne?
I rather enjoy watching apologists such as yourself provide the fodder which will enhance the circus environment that the Republicans will provide this summer.
Thank you.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:00 pmFrom a post above:
If Wack would lie under oath about her past, she would lie to get herself out of anything.
How does that change the fact that Bartow stole from fellow Republicans and robbed them of their elections.
I mean, wouldn’t that same logic used against Wack be instituted about a person that stole from fellow Republicans who would do it again if he had a chance, or are you “Jon Fans” just overlooking the obvious thinking it will just disappear?
Wack isn’t part of your Republican Party anymore. Bartow is now your new vice-leader and you’re apologizing for him.
Priceless.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:32 pmBrian, it’s not been reported clearly, so I think it needs to be clarified, but Bartow doesn’t hold a position in the Executive Commitee or the Central Committee, he was selected only as temporary chair for that very first meeting. It’s not clear what role he’ll play in the future at this point.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:41 pmI realize it could have seemed confusing with the discussion turning to his legal record…
June 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pmHere is a little lesson in statistics.
We have two polulations which I will call Group A- Reichert and
Group B- Stainbrook for simplicity.
Group A Reichert – the majority of these republicans live in the suburbs, spend more time in them so have less chances of being charged in Toledo Municipal Court, and your graph does not represent where these people live. Why didn’t you do a search of columbus for these people? I know why you didn’t, because they don’t live there. Most of Reichert’s group does not live in Toledo either. Your chart is biased (staistically speaking) towards Stainbrook’s people.
Group B Stainbrook – The majority of these republicans live in Toledo, spend more time in Toledo, and your records are weighted towards them since you only searched Toledo and Lucas County. By statistics alone, there should be a higher percentage, becuase these people frequent Toledo more often than the suburbs, the records of which you excluded.
Reichert’s people live in the suburbs and probably spend more time there than in Toledo. Your research does not include records from these areas. You are basing your chart soley on Toledo records and Lucas County.
Plus you don’t account for the fact that some of the people Stainbrook recruited aren’t trust fund spawn. Some of Stainbrook’s recruits grew up and live in more disadvanted areas of Lucas County, They may have had more life struggles and may have made mistakes because of them. But they have paid for their mistakes, learned from them, and have grown up since. They want to be involved and should not have to waer a scarlet letter the rest of their lives.
I am glad I did not vote for Chris Myers for School Board because he would not give any troubled teen a second chance at getting their life straight after paying for their mistakes. He would either try to banish them from school or try to make them all wear a scarlet letter so they pay over and over for there mistakes they made so they don’t become better people. He showed his true colors by the way he handled the county GOP. I will never vote for him EVER, and I am appauled that someone like him attempted to infiltrate Toledo’s school board.
Many of Toledo’s children do need a second chance. By his actions towards the new county GOP members , I know Chris Myers would not even give them the first.
Lisa- please don’t be like Chris Myers. Why can’t you all just give them 2 years like Reichert had? Then say what you want.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:45 pmI apologize Lisa for going off the top of my head instead of research. I just read and absorb.
Dosen’t change the fact that Bartow is even a part of this, let alone being trusted to be put in that position.
Shutting down a fellow Republican at the election meeting? A Republican that was shorted by the guy the leader put into power? Same Diff.
Last I checked, it was called The Lucas County Republican Party, stastically speaking.
And not to change the topic, but what exit on this thread was Chris an issue? Smells like Vindictive to me.
They want to be involved and should not have to waer a scarlet letter the rest of their lives. Unless you’re Joanne Wack and your “crime” was 20 years ago in another state, NOT SCREWING OVER YOUR FELLOW REPUBLICANS AND RUINING THEIR CAMPAIGNS! Where is your outrage over THAT? Your “leader” is trusting him. Any red flags yet?
Selective with the stones, I must say. But I consider the source.
And whatever you do, do not allow the facts to cloud your judgement of spinning an interesting story.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:01 pmFirst, I looked at the burb courts there was nothing earthshattering listed and would have increased the totals on both side by a small margin. I am very aware that some of those do live in the burbs. The bulk of the cases where in Toledo, which is why that was my focus. As most of you know, I don’t do this as a paid position, and it took more than enough time to make sure what I did provide was accurate.
Secondly, I’m not Chris Myers, mainly because I’m not a Republican nor do I ever plan to run for any office and despite how my actions are being twisted by some, I have the same dedication to pointing out many other issues related to people who are selectively being targeted or those who should have a bit more attention paid to them – no matter their party or their connection to me. Stainbrook is being blogged about because it’s something that is current…tomorrow it could very well be about someone else, and chances are? It will be.
I believe if you are going to make promises, no matter who you are that you need to be held to them. The promise made was that the culture of corruption was going to be eliminated, which given what little is known raises questions.
Considering I have no problem calling out my own party? If something happens that I think should be pointed out? I’ll blog about it. If nothing major happens? Then it would be pointless.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:13 pmDevl’s Advocate — seriously….do you really want to begin such an inane incomprehensible argument? You really expect us to sit here and split hairs over who lives in the suburbs and who doesn’t, and why suddenly it’s somehow okay to have broken the law because you live in the city and that somehow leaves everyone at a disadvantage? Of all the arguments I’ve read on here, this is by far the most laughable from you…..I’ve got news for you, crime is a choice, period. Plenty of suburb people, plenty of kids who grow up in the nicest, safest environments in the world still go out and willingly fling themselves into some of the darkest realms of crime and trouble. Get a grip. Wealth and living the suburbs has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone chooses to break the law or not. And subsequently, justice from the law does not, and should not, be granted on the grounds of whether or not somebody grew up in the ‘burbs or not. As far as hanging ’scarlet letters’ on people based on their crime record, it seems you have a rather big streak of favoritism running through you, as I’ve seen absolutely no mercy shown to Ms. Wack, and yet now we’re supposed to feel sorry for people in Stainbrook’s group who have done the same or worse because they might have grown up in ‘disadvantaged’ environment. Uh, no, sorry, can’t say that I do. Equal crime should receive equal punishment and equal justice. End of story.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:18 pmI also add as I head out to have dinner at my daughter’s house, that if any of you think you can do a better job in providing information? Please, start your own blog. I can’t cover everything and the more of us that do provide coverage on a variety of topics makes us an even stronger community.
I hope the conversation remains at least somewhat civil while I enjoy not having to cook this evening.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:19 pmOk, here is the end game. The losing side of this (80 people or so) will not participate in the party (most likely undermine) for the short to medium term and will do their own thing re: their political careers or activism. The 90 or so Stain-ites will whittle down to a handful of true believers. The others with the long hair, tattoos and jewelry will not stay involved because their interest lies elsewhere. Noone will donate to the party as is the case now, even more so now. Power will go to the corrupt cronies’ heads and the leadership of Stain will crumble over his term in office.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:20 pmLisa,
Jon never brought up her past, I did. He even told me not to, but I still did it when she helped Doug Haynam sue people because they never voted. About half of the people he sued did request and returned a republican absent voter ballot; however the board of elections’ records showed they did not vote. I volunteered to be an election observer and then inspected some of the returned republican statement of voter identification envelopes and know some of the people being sued for not voting did in fact vote. Joanne Wack signed an affidavit stating these people did not vote and swore to it based on her review of the records.
Throughout this ordeal Wack has lied over and over again. She lied about changing candidacy petitions after the 4:00 pm deadline and after they were file stamped. She lied about endorsing non-Stainbrook recruits including democrat James Arthur who Haynam later sued. She even attacked my mom, friends, and many people that I have come to know and respect. All this time the old party leadership, along with Jill Kelly at the Board of Elections, stood by her and covered for her. The board of election’s own phone records show this to be true, with over 100 calls to Joanne Wack’s cell phone and party headquarters, more calls than were made to the secretary of state. With respect to last Sunday’s Blade article, any party person knows the tables Reichert was carrying back into party headquarters were not her personal property. Reichert is still bailing her out.
I gave the attorneys her felony conviction to prove she is a liar and has no credibility. I knew she would lie in court, because she incapable of accepting accountability for anything. If it was about criminal records, I would have presented Reichert’s record. It was not.
Jon still won even though his recruits were outnumbered. Does that tell you something. Bartow does not hold a leadership position at the party and was selected because he is a great parliamentarian. As Larry Kaczala said it best, “this is sour grapes.” The good republicans did the right thing and voted for a change in leadership. Why don’t the rest of you so-called republicans get on board and do the right thing? Just because someone has a tattoo doesn’t mean they can’t be republican. Many of them are businessman and never felt like they would be welcome in the party because of their appearance and because of closed-minded people like Dave Schultz. How would it feel if the party kept you out because of your lifestyle Dave? It is natural for people to fear what they do not know. I was at the meeting and each and every one of them was courteous, respectful, and professional; more so than some of the former leadership. This is the time to re-build, put egos aside, and work together to rebuild the party instead of attacking Jon and the new members.
Dave why are you even commenting on this? You are officially a democrat now?
June 17th, 2008 at 7:11 pmI knew this was going to happen. I just have a few things to add to this, and I AM biased because most of the Stain recruits are old friends of mine. First, I think that everyone is forgetting the fact that Wack was only targeted AFTER she targeted the Stainbrook people. Nothing about her past would have been brought up had she not sent that infamous e-mail. Second, she was in a PAID (albeit not much) position in the party, she was not just a precinct chair. Her position in the party warrants more scrutiny than do the precinct cheifs. Third, as far as I know, the only reason any of the incumbent precinct chairs were targeted was because Chris Myers targeted and tried to eliminate some of Jon’s new people. Turnabout is fair play in such a tightly contested race. We all knew it would come down to a few votes. In essence, what I am trying to say here is that almost every “dirty” tactic that was used by the Stainbrook campaign was in retaliation to a similair Wack or Myers manuever. They lost. We won. Now lets all stop crying about how many UNPAID precinct VOLUNTEERS on either side have prior records and start working to make things better. Unless there is a law on the books that states that these people can’t hold the positions they hold because of past transgressions, this is all POINTLESS. Furthermore, the day Stainbrook is caught shredding and concealing party documents, I will be the first to call The Blade because things of that nature would and should matter to members who are TRULY trying to make the party better. If you really care about this party, then you should give him a shot. It’s especially funny to me because I had to sit there and listen to Lynn Olman tell me that I can’t just pick and choose what candidate I support, but that I have to support WHOEVER the Republican candidate turns out to be. Well, from where I’m sitting Jon is now your chairman. Seems to me that if you are a member of the committee and you refuse to help (or worse yet purposely hinder) him, you would be breaking the oath you took when you were sworn in. Am I right, Lynn?
June 17th, 2008 at 7:19 pmI was not going to comment, but I don’t know what you are talking about with me targeting people. I did not target anyone or try to eliminate anyone. Who ever is telling you that story should recheck their facts.
About everything else, I think there is enough out there that others can make up their minds about what is going on.
And since I am at it, Lisa did look up records from the suburbs, so the numbers show what they show. I don’t have a problem with police run-ins or developing a record living in Toledo.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:48 pmWell this is not an either/or situation. Either Wack or Stainbrook is a good person, qualified leader and all around good guy? Sorry, from this vantage point it looks like the Republican party in Lucas county has been largely inactive and poorly run.
And it looks as though those who are incoming aren’t any better. Yet somehow, less likable.
Two questions, first – what exactly is it going to take to get honest, qualified and ETHICAL leadership in Toledo? And secondly, Lisa has anybody tried to pay you to go away yet
Well done.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:51 pmAnd as a stellar example and witness to my statement above, unless they have a new website – the lucasgop dot org is down. In both explorer and firefox.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:54 pmTrust me Kelly, people tried to withhold my endorsement so no need to lecture me. This was my analysis and opinion. It’s America you know. Agreed that I could have left out their descriptors but I felt it was appropriate since it was described that way in the Blade. I can comment whatever my party affiliation is; albeit it was just for a day in March. You could say I am a man without a party at the moment but is irrelevant to my ability to comment thank you.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:20 pmWell, I see it was interesting while I was gone, dinner was good, my second youngest daughter is an excellent cook.
Dave as well as everyone is entitled to their opinion, I’ve been told among the nicer emails that were not hate filled threat missives that this was none of my business because I’m not a Republican. What both political parties do does affect us.
Continuing to focus on Wack is about as pointless as the Democrats who still continue to stay that Gore won…It doesn’t change what is happening right now. That’s what is going to matter.
Kate, not yet but at times it might be tempting if someone did – lol.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:35 pmEven opinions from people who hide behind screen names….
June 17th, 2008 at 8:44 pmChris, I was advised that you were the one responsible for postponing the meeting by trying to get some of Jon’s guys taken off the committee for various reasons. For someone in your position, this just seemed like an attempt to even the odds for the election or buy time. If this is untrue, then I apologize. It just seems to me that you keep trying to come off as this unbiased “truth-seeker,” but you have yet to speak up about any of the isses that have been raised about the previous chair and his people. Seems to me that someone as honorable as you should be outraged by the latest shredder incident and, in some ways, be giving the Stainbrook group an apology or at least a “looks like you guys may have been right on this one.” And where is your condemnation of Wack for this? Or Reichert for defending her again? Did I miss it, or do you think that what she did was somehow ethical or even just okay? Your words might go a lot further with me if you were willing to be critical of BOTH sides, especially since this incident DIRECTLY effects the party and raises serious questions about how it was being run. You seem way more concerned about what MIGHT happen instead of what HAS happened in regards to this committee. Again, if you have commented on this somewhere and I missed it, sorry. If not, I would really like to hear your take. We all DO have differing opinions, and I have no problem with that (or with you for that matter), but please stop pretending to be unbiased when you have clearly taken a side.
June 17th, 2008 at 8:55 pmBTW my name is Aaron Urbanski, and no Mr. Schulz, you can’t hire me to write better posts for you.
Your services are not needed thank you. Thanks for revealing your identity. I don’t think Chris had anything to do with any lawsuits. That was the party leadership (Haynam and Reichert)
June 17th, 2008 at 9:11 pmThe ironic thing about this whole post is that hardly anyone is addressing the real issue, it’s really simple. Either things will change or many of you will continue to focus on people that now don’t matter…
Jon has the leadership now, so the real issue is what happens next what decisions he makes as far as the promises that were made and then Aaron, if that happens? People might actually say they were wrong or they underestimated him.
Just as is it is human nature for many of you to continue to try to focus on what “they” did it’s also human nature for people to be skeptical, the easiest way to solve that is to prove them wrong. Well that’s actually not the easiest way, the easiest way is to avoid taking any responsibility and blame someone else, but eventually people figure that out.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:12 pmI have since found that out, thanks…and sorry Chris. Haynam was guy, although I hear that you did help with the research or at the very least support his actions, so I guess the rest of my post pertains.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:17 pmAaron, no problem. Who ever told you that was wrong.
I don’t know what happened with the shredder so I can’t comment on it. I have only commented on what is going on or what I perceived. If the shredder incident is illegal it is wrong. All I saw was a bunch of green paper on the table, who knows what it could have been. I shred documents all the time. That is what they say you should do with your old bank statements and credit card bills/offers.
I have said on Troy Neff’s show a month ago where I thought the party could improve. I also said I had the opportunity to see the challenges intimately and I don’t think that what Jon was saying was going to fix them. Jon will run into these issues. Maybe he can, but the lack of Republican support was about the Noes for a year, but over the last 1.5 years it has been because Republicans have not acted like Republicans.
Joanne should not have denied the incident, but the question should not have been asked, and even the judge thought so too.
I have said on some of my posts who I was supporting and have been open about it. If there is something to say I will say it. We all are a product of our upbringing, and we all see things different ways. I am sure I see things differently than you and everyone else for that matter.
I think I am repeating myself too much. I also think there is enough out there for everyone to make their own decision. Which is why I want to focus on new issues now (and why I tried not to be dragged into this conversation).
June 17th, 2008 at 9:19 pmI think you might be wrong there as well Aaron, I doubt Chris did lots of research, and as for supporting what the Republican Party did?
Expecting Republicans to not question those who didn’t vote Republican to be on their party is not a huge suprise. Which in the end didn’t really matter, Jon got more of his supporters to show up than theirs did.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:20 pmI’d like to see Chris take a bigger role in the local GOP but I don’t think there’s enough time in the day to get everything done for him.
Additionally I’ll point out that the Blade is a left leaning publication and has a great deal of control over who runs for what office by investigating (take the Wack question for instance. While it’s wrong to lie about something – how do you reply to a question that’s inappropriate in the very asking? This is one of the Blade’s regular tactics), and running the more mundane parts of people’s histories with much gusto – presenting to an unsuspecting readership of some great scandal, when in reality chances are many of their neighbors have these same issues in their own history.
Also investigating people they’d like to get rid of and reporting business as usual items in the singular. As in campaign finance irregularities that are typically found in ALL campaigns, but just reporting the findings for those the Blade would like to see gone.
In that light many people who would provide good leadership in local politics will never seek election. What reasonable person would?
June 17th, 2008 at 9:35 pmY-A-W-N. Too much Net drama, too little time…
Stain’s got his chance now. He’ll either: a) screw it up; b) fail to make something of a moribund party; or c) actually accomplish something.
From the looks of things in the first few days, it seems like the answer is “a.” Jon Stainbrook is the one who tried to create a goofy Shredgate, keeping alive the factional feuding instead of being a leader, bringing the party together.
Dear Jon: if you want to be taken seriously, act like a party leader instead of a party animal. The amount of time you wasted in tipping off Blade peeps for a retarded photo op with the “shredding conspiracy” could have been much better spent extending olive branches to the people you have pissed off, in some cases for over a decade.
Of course, this is the Stain we are talking about, the forty-something who still thinks he’s in the 1980s, plotting sneaky hidden camera escapades and trying to turn a crowd of tattooed bar-hoppers into the nucleus of a political party.
Good luck, mister.
June 17th, 2008 at 9:36 pmI will add, before I get slammed, that the Blade has shown it will eat from both sides of the aisle
June 17th, 2008 at 9:37 pmWell put Mike…
June 17th, 2008 at 9:56 pmA theory about the Blade and Mr. Stainbrook’s LCRP that was recently considered after Jon won…..Would anyone consider that perhaps now the Blade begins to ‘discover’ all the rap sheets of the Stainbrook leadership within the LCRP and says, ‘well it’s so apparent now that the GOP is just a bunch of crooks through and through, no matter who takes control, both locally and nationally…so go vote Democrat, Toledo, both for the city, and while you’re at it, vote Democrat for the nation this November.’ Might this be an underlying reason to have at it’s disposal as to why the Blade helped Stainbrook win the LCRP?
June 17th, 2008 at 9:58 pmChris-
Your statement “Joanne should not have denied the incident, but the question should not have been asked, and even the judge thought so too.” is absolutely false. You were not at court, and I was. Maybe you were the one Joanne was texting the whole time after she perjured herself. The judge allowed the testimony and said it was relevant to determine her credibility and the credibility of her affidavit and testimony. In fact, the judge stopped her testimony and told her she needed an attorney because she perjured herself.
Lisa- Jon’s recruits were outnumbered and the party faithfuls put him over the top. I wish you could have been there to see it for yourself.
This post has prompted discussions of the past because it is about people’s past dealings with the courts. Maybe a better post could be a discussion of what republicans can do to rebuild their party and come together for the sake of all republicans in Lucas County, inluding those not directly involved in the party central committee. I have been told by many republican voters in Lucas County that they are excited about the change in leadership and now want to become involved.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:02 pmWell Kelly, if that’s true then there should be no division, you should be able to get volunteers and money and this current leadership question should be easily resolved by having a combination of old and new to prove that the whole “culture of corruption” riddance happened with Executive Committee Members who will be without reproach and able to bring their own individual talents to the party so that you can concentrate on what the other goal was, to get republican candidates elected.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:07 pmHistorymike, I think that might be one of the best posts on the thread. Very well put! It is obvious from reading the posts of the Stainbrook supporters that they would rather spend time seeing conspiracies where none exist and beating on the past deeds or misdeeds of people who are no longer in control then cleaning out the corruption they have in their own house.
Several of Jon’s supporters are questioning Lisa’s research and wasting space trying to justify the actions of some of Jon’s supporters. The fact is Jon Stainbrook is now in control and ran on a platform of cleaning out corruption. Matt Bartow is corruption and so are several supporters Jon has brought with him. Either he will clean them out or he won’t it is that simple. What Wack or Reichert did is no longer an issue they aren’t in control. Jon is. Will he do as he promised? So far it doesn’t appear he will.
Second, if Jon is such a leader and a person that will unite and move the party forward and in a direction it hasn’t been able to move to in the last couple of years why doesn’t he start by hanging out an Olive branch to some of the current members of the party who weren’t even around when Noe was involved or had nothing to do with Noe. No, instead he paints everyone that he didn’t personally bring to the party with the corruption brush of Noe. He chooses to not denounce the very criminals he has chosen to surround himself with and spends the last several days issuing threats, orders, and babbling about the past deeds of people no longer in control.
Jon, here is an open message to you directly. You are the leader now. What others did before is a non issue. Either act like a leader and unite EVERYONE in the party and stick to your campaign promises by removing your own corruption and prove you are a leader. The alternative is do what you are currently doing and continue to divide the party and keep it in the mud for years to come. The choice is yours to make now.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:21 pmKelly, that is great you were there. And for those who want to hear the balance of Kelly:
http://www.troyneff.com/podcast/podaudio08/042908/joannwack.mp3
No Joanne was not texting me during the court.
If the court thought it was a big deal they would have prosecuted which is why I said the judge thought so too.
The interesting thing is this whole thing is now well documented on the Internet. For those who want to weigh the evidence, you can really do it and see both sides.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:22 pmNational Enquirer, anyone?
June 17th, 2008 at 10:34 pmDarn Roland, you figured it out, I’ve been working hard to learn National Enquirer skills so that I can move out west were my daughter lives and work for them…
June 17th, 2008 at 11:39 pmcaught in the act
Wack in the news is very current as she was stealing from headquarters right after the new leadership was chosen.
LOL. Get the court transcript. You are citing a clip from a liar!!! Unbelievable!!! Hilarious!
June 17th, 2008 at 11:40 pmTracker thank you, and Chris good point, this is why the net works, agree or disagree it can’t be said that the process of discussion is selective in the information that is shared and out there for those who want to agree/disagree or gather more information.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:43 pmKelly, she just as anyone else has the right to tell her side. Getting to the dead horse stage but she has nothing to do with the decision made as to the new leadership or realistically anything related to the party with the exception of her being given the items that were hers back…
Jon could go on Neff anytime he wants if he wanted to get his side of the story out.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:49 pmI’m a registered Republican no longer active because Bernadette didn’t like me. Interestingly, Tom once told me that I had a real future in politics and made a genuine effort to help me advance my career as did the late, great Jim Brennan.
What’s unfortunate here is that the two “factions” fighting here are both necessary to the party’s success. Guys with big bucks know guys with big bucks. Reichart is one of those guys. Jon doesn’t know a lot of guys with big bucks. So, without Bob Reichart and his people, the party’s fundraising will suffer.
However, guys like Reichart seldom do more work for the party than open and close their checkbooks. It’s the young, energetic idealists (by young, I mean late 30s and early 40s) who know how to organize, motivate, and drive kids (by kids I mean those in their 20s and 30s) to go out on dawn patrol on election day, to stand at the polling places, to put mailing labels on slate cards, and to provide energy. Jon does this as well as anybody in Lucas County in either party.
I neither for or against either of them. I don’t know Bob well, but I’ve not been satisfied with the lack of effort put into the party’s efforts since the Noes left. But he does raise money. Jon and I go back a lot of years and the relationship has always been friendly. I know Jon’s strengths and watched as candidates like Mike DeWine, George Voinovich, Bob Dole, and W successfully put those talents to work. I just don’t think Jon has the horsepower to raise funds.
We need both factions. The Haynams are just going to have to swallow their pride. Lynn Olman could resurrect his career as an elder statesman in this county if he lets go of his bitterness. Bob Reichart needs to get people to open his wallets.
Jon’s people are going to have to be much more gracious winners. Reach out to the Reichart faction and give them a substantive role in the direction of the party. We need them. We need their money and their wisdom.
I don’t know if Jon was the right guy or not. But now, he is THE guy. I’m going to support him. I want to help him restore the Lucas County GOP to the party it was 15 years ago when Jon and I were just breaking into the game.
Both sides, quit slinging mud at each other!
June 18th, 2008 at 12:48 amI agree with Mr. Schwartz. There is no reason that these two factions cannot come together. Both Doug Haynam and Jon Stainbrook are reasonable people (and the same is true of Bob Reichart), despite what some may think because of after-the-fact reports of nonsense such as this ridiculous witch-hunt against Stainbrook and his recruits. So we’ve come to a point where one blogger, and another forum hoster, and another talk radio host who nobody listens to, have all come together to make Mr. Stainbrook and his recruits to look like a bunch of criminals. With respect, Lisa, please send me your report and your data concerning this issue. I’d love to see it, because it is assuredly flawed.
I really don’t understand the point of this post. We’re comparing traffic tickets and other misdemeanor nonsense with ethics. Okay, so based on your story, Lisa, everybody must be perfect. Well guess what, people get speeding tickets. And for some dumb reason or another, people don’t challenge them, because the city will ALWAYS offer a lesser charge (non-moving violation) to avoid trial. In addition, by your own admission, you looked to the suburban and mayor’s courts of this county, but not to the extent that you did the city court. Surely, your data is flawed. I’m sorry, but not only is this post irrelevant, because it won’t change what happened, but it has almost, but not quite yet, reached a level of piss-poor journalism and commentary. I’ll be awaiting your report and your data.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:09 am“We’re comparing traffic tickets and other misdemeanor nonsense with ethics”
DUIs, drug charges and spousal abuse are “misdemeanor nonsense”?
A quick google search on “Toledo Municipal Court search” and in my inexperience, even I found a wealth of information. Plus, it shows when charges are amended to lesser charges… Wow, if only I had thought to look up that info on my landlords before signing a lease. It sure makes a quick, free background check.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:18 amEmily just obliterated #63….
June 18th, 2008 at 6:58 amJust read the Blade opinion garbage today on Stainbrook. I actually agree with the parts about restoring integrity to the party and that new leadership is needed on the BOE but I shudder at who would replace them. Jon could finally get a somewhat steady job out of it by appointing himself. Then they call on Jon Binkley to resign from the state central committee. Message to the Blade: He was duly elected to that post and your opinion means absolutely nothing. I am sure this is JRB’s way of trying to get Jon the post he couldn’t obtain on his own in 2006. Why didn’t they call for Joanne Wack to leave her state central committee post? Sounds like ulterior motives to me.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:30 amLisa said:
“Confused or now not so confused. Please read the rules for posting on this site. It includes providing a valid email address. If you want to use some sort of service to change your ip address every time you post that’s your choice. However…it clearly states you must provide a valid email address that’s not traditionally recognized as a service such as the one you are using is.”
Lisa, by now you have received my email. Obviously, one does not have to have a “traditionally recognized” service to receive email.
BTW, is glasscityjungle a “traditionally recognized” medium?
;0
Just kidding — have fun and try not to go blind trying to track your visitors.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:14 amConfused, I did receive your email, thank you and I sent you a response explaining to you why your using more than one email address in addition to changing your ip address created concern.
In the past there have been people who have used fake email address and who have posted under several different names on the same thread, agreeing with each other, though in one case the same person disagreed with each other which was fairly entertaining.
Your email addresses are kept confidential, so is ip information. Yet those are the easiest two ways for me to make sure that people can stay anonymous but not do what has happened in the past or happens on other forums where you think you are debating with a number of people and in reality you are only debating one.
I could not allow anonymous posting or I could moderate posting, which I don’t want to do, so the request of asking those who want to stay anonymous to use a valid email, and to try to stick to one name regardless of their ip is in my opinion not a cumbersome request to try to ensure that your privacy is protected but that the discussion is credible.
It is more work, it would be easier to just eliminate anonymous posting, and create a situation where people have to “join” and then log in. I think that cuts down on the discussion so while I’m sorry you feel you were unfairly accused, I believe my reasons for concern were well placed and as long as you stick to one name/email? Life goes on.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:44 am“…so the request of asking those who want to stay anonymous to use a valid email”
And I received your response.
Doesn’t that mean the email is valid?
I’ll respect your requests. However, please don’t expect people to read your mind.
You called me out on this during a discussion where you obviously disagreed with me.
That sent up flags on my side, as well.
Anyway, whatever…
I did not abuse your system. I just thought that it was cute to use the email addies as a way to express myself.
You know… Like confused or notconfused@whatever
June 18th, 2008 at 12:19 pmProgressive,
If nobody listens to my show, then what I have to say about Jon won’t matter. I do know “the stain” or his people listen. They post my audio on 48rogues.com. By the way my Rant and Rave for Fox News will air tomorrow and is on this topic. Now go pound sand.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:45 pmConfused, do you want to have this discussion here or do you want to have it by email? Since we are doing both and not to be rude but spending this much time on something that is really simple is taking me away from other stories I’d like to work on. I’ve already explained why I was concerned and why I created the rule. I’m not a mind reader and what is cute to you, since no one else can see the email address but me, or you sent off warning bells for me given what has happened in the past and your changing ip.
It’s very simple, use one email address and pick one name and it doesn’t matter if you use 1,000 ip addresses. I’ve tried to make my rules as easy to follow as possible and I’ve explained why given the service you used I had concern that it was not a valid email.
Other people here use ip masking services, they post here without question – why? They use the same email address and the same name every time they post. I’m sorry you felt targeted and offended in some way and hopefully now that we’ve discussed this matter both here and through email? The discussion can center on what this post was about which was the selection of the new Executive Commitee & Central Committee members and does this demonstrate Jon’s promise of ridding the party of the culture of corruption that he stated as a goal.
June 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pmTroy, I’m a big fan!
I think there’s always room myopic bloviating, that represents only one side. Keep up the good work!
I’m told that the LCRP website is down (http://lucasgop.org), and further, i’m told that the webmaster for that site is Chris Myers.
So, is Mr. Myers having a tantrum, or just updating the site?
June 18th, 2008 at 1:05 pmRogue,
Are you suggesting that I offer only one side or version of events? Jon has an open invitation to be on my show anytime. He told me that he didn’t want to come on because I write for the Free Press. I would treat Jon the same way I treat Ben, Frank and others that I differ with politically.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:33 pmTroy, join the “Kurt/Progressive Toledo has issues with you club”, which considering there is a connection to him and the Stainbrook side of the lawsuit against the LCRP, it’s not surprising that he would make the comments that he did. It’s also proof that despite those that like to believe that I’m “so unfair” that even those who love to insult me, are allowed to comment here.
Rogue, if Chris owns the website which I’m not sure is accurate, he doesn’t have to turn it over for free nor automatically since it appears the Party doesn’t own it. Domains and hosting do cost money so wouldn’t that be up to the new chair to a) ask for it and b) take over financial responsibility for it. Last I heard neither had been done. I don’t know if the party was paying for it or if those who were doing it were taking care of that aspect of it, I think it is a bit unfair to attack Chris on that issue or accuse him of having a tantrum.
Then again, quite a bit of time has been spent on this thread attacking others while avoiding the question of is Jon going to keep his promise as to the culture of corruption issue or not…
It’s really clear from those who have stated that they support Jon that they’d rather not talk about that. They’d rather try to focus on others. Which is rather disappointing since it really appears that he’s not going to be expected to keep his promises.
Oh and Kurt? Considering you are an attorney and you do have access to even more court information than I have access too? Look it up yourself, I know you know how. If you think you can do a better job than my “piss poor journalism?” Start blogging again, and do a better job than me. I can promise you that I’ll never treat you with the lack of respect that you have continually aimed at me. I’ve never pretended to be a journalist, but you can if you want to.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:36 pmCouldn’t have said it better myself Lisa!
June 18th, 2008 at 2:06 pmThat was a smashing return of serve and someone’s jockstrap has been left on the court….
June 18th, 2008 at 2:37 pmI realize Kurt loves to jab at me, and that I’ll rarely make him happy but I get tired of the double standard and his lecturing when he’s not exactly being honest with his connections to people or issues that are coloring his motivation for going after people.
The irony is anytime I post anything about Stainbrook I get more harrassment off the blog and even on the blog than I have experienced in any other story. Even the nazi’s harrassed me less, but I still try to be as fair as possible which I seriously doubt most of my critics could manage as well as I have, it’s a hell of a lot harder than it looks. This blog gives even the Kurt’s of the world the same access to my readership to make their points. That said, I am human and I do really encourage anyone who believes they can do a better job to go for it. There’s more than enough room in this area for more blogs like mine, I think whether people love me or hate me it’s clear that I’m not real big on trying to intimidate or harrass people into silence or creating an environment where they don’t have the ability to comment.
I realize that the goal of the harrassment and negative comments is to try to make me not want to post on certain topics. I think it’s also clear that doesn’t work…I realize what is being said about me with some of the attempts out there to paint me as this evil biased monster with an ax to grind. There is a certain responsibility that comes with having this blog and I try not to abuse that power. Though at times? It’s pretty darn tempting…However I’m not stupid and the only reason why this blog has any power at all? Is because of those of you who read it. While you may have to work very hard to build a readership it’s pretty darn easy to kill one.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:21 pmWell, Lisa, if that’s the case.
We can certainly say that Chrissy has his panties in a twist. My information is that the site was modified yesterday, and taken private.
If Chrissy did that, and did not own it, I’m guessing he’s got a problem. Bartow tells me it’s felony over $500.
But I’m sure this all a misunderstanding.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:43 pmRogue, that’s an interesting accusation, especially if the party never owned the domain as it seems considering other people have control over it. Like I said, last I heard there had been no request made concerning the domain, if the new leadership has a valid legal demand that it has to be turned over? Then it should be turned over.
If those who own it have taken on the financial responsibility of it, they should be reimbursed for their costs and be able to cancel the hosting and turn over the domain name. Then you guys can do with it what you want.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:56 pmI am relatively new to the Toledo/Lucas County area. Attended law school here, moved away, came back. I spent some time with a conservative judge awhile back and asked him how a relatively young, conservative republican, could be successful politically in an area dominated by Democrats. His advice was: pick a good candidate, work hard for him/her, and get your name known.
Unfortunately, with the division in the local GOP, and some of the sentiments, arguments, and attacks shown on this thread, I’m not real eager to jump in with both feet. With the uphill battle republicans face in NW Ohio, and the lessons we should have learned from the democrat two team system, you think we would be more unified.
Sadly, we are not.
T AHL
June 18th, 2008 at 4:08 pmWell Bartow should know about felonies.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:15 pmLisa, you talk about moving on, but what did you expect to happen? This entire post was bait for both sides to argue about. Jon has barely dipped his toes in the pool and everyone is already taling about what a bad job he is going to do. You yourself seem to have only negative things to say when you are not busy speaking for Chris. (Not trying to be mean, but you are starting to sound like his mom – “my Chris would never do that.” If I were him, I’d prefer to speak for myself.) The only truly positive post on this topic was the one by Mr. Schwartz and he is absolutely right. Both sides are necessary for this to work, but if you were at the meeting you would have seen that most of the bad blood seemed to be coming from the old guard and not the new. I am one of the new guys and I don’t like being stereotyped, so I have been getting defensive here. What did you expect? I am also responsible for a speeding ticket and a civil case (of which I was the plaintiff), so I tend to think that chart is ridiculous as well. It really comes down to this; If the old guard decides to take their football and go home, they will be setting Jon up to fail, and that just hurts the party (see my first post about the Olman “oath” speach that got huge rounds of applause at the meeting). That being said, I agree that Jon has to be the one to start the “peace” process and I think he will. Nobody knows how this will turn out and I can understand why any Democrats here would be slinging these arrows – I’d do the same. This is probably great fun for them. I’m just confused as to why the Republicans would do the same. For the record, I don’t know any of you and have no prior “bad blood” tainting my posts. While I admit that I am biased and obliged to defend myself and my friends, I am trying my best to call it like I see it. I guess I just don’t see the supposed “progress” in these negative predictions that some are making.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:39 pmIt’s been clear to me that Kurt’s “investment in his education” was a windfall to the institution he paid to go to with the blatent ignorance he displays regularly. That teacher made some free money seeing Kurt didn’t learn a thing in class.
Damn shame of a wasted semester.
So much for full disclosure, eh Kurt? How close actually are you to Jon Stain, Kurtis? As much as I’d rather you just fess up, it’s more fun just peeling the layers back.
I rather enjoy reading what Kurt writes, only because it’s very entertaining to see him and his ignorance as he tries so hard to type over his head. Yep Lisa, he can’t even blog like a professional, why expect him to interact as one?
I just know his employers are praying Kurt dosen’t share info about the offices where he “works”.
I’ve already made my point about Jon’s “culture of corruption” drama the minute he put ol’ Bartow in charge. Nothing like alienating your core party members, right? Rather just tell ‘em to sit down and shut up.
Real effective leadership! lol
June 18th, 2008 at 4:52 pmWhat did I expect? That those of you who wanted Jon would hold him to the same expectation of standards that you held the former Republican party at. I knew that would be difficult but I hoped that those of you firmly believed that the last group was “so bad” would want the new group to be as the Blade stated today:
It’s clear it’s not starting out that way not just because of the Executive Committee/Central Committee members but because of what’s been stated here by some on both sides.
I’m probably almost old enough to be Chris’s mom, but I disagree that I’ve spent that much time defending him. If you were being unfairly attacked? I’d do the same thing for you. So, sure there is some mom in me but it extends to the blog in general and a part of my personality in real life. I realize it would ruin the whole conspiracy aspect but I’ve done the same thing when people have gone off the deep end in being anti-Jon to try to concentrate on the facts rather than anger, hatred and wild rumor mongering, while trying to not stop any of you from saying what you think.
Of course there is always the risk that people will do exactly what has happened here, and concentrate only on the one upmanship of personal attacks rather than to focus on the real issues. I can’t control that but I keep trying and once in a while? It works and people actually discuss the real issues.
June 18th, 2008 at 4:58 pmWell said, Kidcoffee.
I was sifting through this mess because it appears as though Mr. Myers is attempting to take his toys and go home so he doesn’t have to work with Mr. Stainbrook.
I hope that everyone can shake hands and come out to whip the Dems!
Ms. Lisa is a self-proclaimed Democrat.
‘Nuff said.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:00 pmYes, let’s make this about me, confused, because after all I am a Democrat and anyone who has done even a tiny bit of reading realizes that I believe part of the reason why my party is so messed up in Lucas County is because the Democratic Party does not face any serious challenge from Republicans to create the necessary balance of power needed to encourage good candidates and transparency. Jon failing makes it even more possible that Democrats will never have to unite to defeat Republicans, you defeat yourselves most of the time…
I’ve never hidden that as an agenda and anyone who has a problem with it? Probably has an ulterior motive I wouldn’t agree with.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:06 pmthis comming form someone that finds it “cute” to brainscrew posters.
My voter’s registration card has NA in the “Affiliation Selection” on my voter’s card.
IMHO, these two political factions just show me that neither party has the nads to step up and out from the shadows and view the community through clearer glasses. The Dems in this town are sexually massaged daily by unions and the Republicans are…were, I mean, lazy and lethargic.
Now they’re delusional and myopic.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:08 pmUht oh, watch out, Stainbrook’s groupies are coming out of the woodwork again! Let’s all sing a round of Kumbaya while holding hands? ;-D
June 18th, 2008 at 5:20 pmUh, I seemed to have forgotten something. Maybe it’s my age creeping up on me. Could someone please jog my memory? What is the topic of this message thread?
June 18th, 2008 at 6:54 pmRoland, thought it was about the new chair of the Republican party and a leadership decision he made as far as his selection for the party’s Executive and Central Committee…
However now it appears to be about me, maybe now’s a good time to work on my “loose cannon” skills.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:25 pmI was under the impression it was about Jon’s doing something about ending the “culture of corruption” in the Republican party by utilizing members of questionable character into powerful positions within the party’s local headquarters. But with Jon screwing up his first decision as the “New Leader”, he chose a thief that stole from fellow Republicans and ruined opportunities for winning elections and upstanding members of the Party with integrity and pride are shut down like unruly children in a theater.
But that seems to be nothing compared to what the kool-aid drinkers are doing here. Lisa’s impecable credibility being called into question by some members of the new Republican regime with their askewed perspective, at least that is what is looks like to me.
Seems the facts, and we’re talking about today, not last month, are so straight in their faces that they can’t look past the trees to see the forest, again.
Bartow stole from Republicans and short-circuted their elections. Jon’s first decree was to put this thief into a position of power. Nope, that is not the way you destroy the “culture of corruption”.
Forget about Wack, fellers, she ain’t comming back. But I am grateful I’m not going to be a Republican in Lucas County this summer.
But it is nice to see them participate.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:41 pmBrian, it’s because some of them just discovered that I am a *gasp* Democrat. I tried to hide it, I really did but they were just too gosh darn smart for me.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:44 pmIt is really interesting how these things play out. I think HistoryMike is proven correct again. I vote for a too.
The real story:
-Yes, the site is not working
-Yes, I was the one updating the site for the last month or so due to the party not updating it.
-Yes, the domain is not resolving.
-No, I did not take my toys and leave. Last night I e-mailed Bob the log in information as requested and I said Jon should call me directly if he has any questions. Jon has not called me. I was going to offer a copy of the site to him when he did, but he again misses an opportunity to show leadership. Nothing but more middle school behavior from the familiar nameless names.
-No, I don’t know who owns the domain name.
Since Jon decides to send nameless people to a Web site to post rumors about what happened and these nameless people lap it up like it is a milkshake then regurgitate it on blogs without thought (at the same time looking stupid doing it once you realized you just vomited), Jon can download the site at his convenience at http://swampbubbles.com/files/lucasgop.zip . Maybe if Jon were to have just asked I could have hosted the site or helped out, but it is becoming apparent the type of personality he has and his followers. This is a very self-destructive type of leadership and I am upping my bet in the pool.
-Now Jon has all of the toys I have.
From my own experience, it is easier to start another site than tracking down who did it. You have the files now, feel free to find your own host for them. A global find and replace can get the site up and running in 24 hrs.
BTW I did not design it, it was done in Frontpage, which no real Webmaster uses and the code and design suck. It was a liability for me to attach my name on such a poorly coded Web site, but they needed help and I volunteered.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:49 pmThen they have to be climbing through walls knowing I’m not even affiliated with a party.
It amazes me that the “How much I care®”detector dosen’t register with their new leader, but it pegs “10″ when they run it over you.
Amazing!
One day they’ll get it right, I hope!
June 18th, 2008 at 7:50 pmSo for the musicians out there, I have a message for you:
http://swampbubbles.com/bubble/my-thoughts-after-another-day-trying-move
June 18th, 2008 at 8:01 pmLisaRenee wrote in comment # 90:
Roland, thought it was about the new chair of the Republican party and a leadership decision he made as far as his selection for the party’s Executive and Central Committee…
However now it appears to be about me, maybe now’s a good time to work on my “loose cannon” skills.
ROFLMAO
June 18th, 2008 at 9:22 pmChris,
Thanks for your explanation.
One last question.
The site went down. Do you know why? Forgive me, but wasn’t the site operational before Mr. Stainbrook’s ascension? The timing of the sites demise seems to be suspicious. Don’t you think?
I am not an acquaintance of Mr. Stainbrooks, or any of the other people who have posted here.
Frankly, I feel that I was personally attacked by Ms. Ward, and Mr. Maxson because of my views. So, I might have reacted a little to that.
Of course the attacks upon me go right along with personal assaults upon Mr. Stainbrook here.
Again, I don’t know any of you people. And since I’m new… Yes, I just found out that Ms. Ward is a Democrat.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:24 pmI’m very sorry confused if you felt my dilligence in trying to make sure that a site that gets as many visits and comments that it does is credible considering you used more than one email address that raised concerns was an “attack”.
In the ten years I’ve been online on various message boards and having several blogs, I’ve never “attacked” anyone. I’ve disagreed and I’ve written with much more passion than I use here on issues I truly believe in and I’ve faced attacks, death threats, stalkers and a myriad of other bs that I have never returned. Can I banter a few mild insults with the best of them? Of course…but most of the time I do that it’s done in humor and I go on quite a bit on the “About me” page about myself which clearly states I am a Democrat. Though some will tell you I don’t fit their idea of a “good Democrat”.
This blog is extremely mild in how people treat each other because a) I have a great group of regular readers/commentors who follow my rules and b) I do monitor carefully what is going on as you experienced personally. This place may seem “bad” if you don’t have a lot of experience on political blogs/forums but it’s really the PG civil world compared to quite a few of the other sites out there where at times? I’m even afraid to want to venture into.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:37 pmThank you, Lisa.
Again, I’m new to this blog (and most other blogs, except geekish ones).
I’ll try to get a little thicker skin.
Peace
June 18th, 2008 at 10:30 pmJust wanted to make it an even 100….haha
June 18th, 2008 at 10:41 pmChris,
Please, please, PLEASE try to reach out to John. You’re one of the few guys we have who actually has a name people recognize. You’ve lost a couple races, but so did George Sarantou and others like him before he won. Guys our age are going to have to keep it together and move the part forward. We got to get the old guys to write the checks, but we’ve got to do the work and we have to work together.
Jon needs you and Republicans need you. Jon is the chairman for the next two years. Please don’t spend those next two years trying to prove the local GOP made a bad decision. Let’s try to make this thing work.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:48 pmConfused, no harm no foul and if I would have known you were so new to all of this I would have tried to be more helpful. It’s hard at times to jump into some of this, which is why a great deal of people lurk and email me then a few decide to venture in. It can get crazy here at times.
Congratulations Dave! For your prize I think you deserve that cookie ice cream dessert at Packo’s.
Brian, considering the letter Chris just got notifying him that he’s being sued for something that he doesn’t even have full control over, I think you are telling the wrong person that he’s needed or should be the one to try to work things out…He’s been accused of “internet terrorism.”
June 18th, 2008 at 10:55 pmSincerely Brian, your thoughts are well intentioned and but don’t work in the real world. The Jenie is out of the bottle and a war is on for the remnants of the local GOP. On the basic level this is just a battle of poltical hacks and wannabes for control over something that is in a spiral decline. You know from working with Carty…politics breeds these seemingly petty fights over what is basically an ego trip. My prize sounds yummy.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:03 pmI plan to contact Jon to discuss with him how this nonsense can end. I agree that Jon’s responsibility in ending this is higher than anyone’s because he’s the head honcho now.
Passions can cool and reasonable minds can meet. Both sides need to simmer down just a little. Someone with the right temperament and stature needs to mediate here. Mark Wagoner, I think, would be the right guy. George Sarantou would also be a good candidate. Unfortunately, neither owes the party a damn thing. All the Noes cared about was their standing with George Bush. They didn’t do anything to help local candidates.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:25 pmBrian, I am trying to move on, but I keep getting dragged back in. I have said enough about everything else, I do not need to repeat myself.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:26 pm#91 Brian Maxson
I hope you take this compliment as it was meant. Your post #91 was F’n Great.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:37 pmBrian, the electeds will just work around Jon to serve their own political careers. If a time comes when they need Jon for a specific purpose they will use him and vice versa.
The reason the party is weak is multifold: just like the national party electeds; the locals sell out on a dime for political expediency, the Noes ruined the local party and fed the culture that exists in the small clique still around about lining their pockets and advancing their careers to the detriment of the party and lastly Bush has ruined the Republican brand. Combine all that noise with the fact that JRB at the Blade is the puppet master – that leaves many GOPers very leery and distrustful.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:41 pmSo much written about a party that accomplishes very little. I say enough time wasted on these losers. The Blade gives front page coverage to “The Stain” and his merry group of henchmen and henchwomen, and provides a blow-by-blow of the meeting and document shredding, and possible criminal activity by Ms. Wack.
That’s no surprise given her background of crime and then we find out the “The Stain” has his own record of misdemeanors and the like. Whatever happened to people of character becoming involved in politics? It seems that the few with character are likely to drop in and then drop out of politics after they view what occurs within the respective parties in Lucas County.
And that leaves us with the warring factions among both parties and with little good being accomplished. Too bad for us.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:10 amWow, I’ve always thought myself to be somewhat of a peacemaker… actually I am. What I have a problem with is Ms. Ward’s refusal to submit her study to me. I don’t know what my relationship with Mr. Stainbrook has anything to do it, I just want to see her study. I want to see her theory, her methods, her data, her analysis, and her conclusions (I’m an economist, I’m trained in this stuff). And to be quite frank, I’ve met Mr. Stainbrook twice. Ms. Ward is correct that I myself could look up these records, and I have, and I must say about 95% of the charges against the Stainbrook crew have been dismissed. It’s one thing to be charged with a crime, it’s another to be convicted. I just think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion. All of it, even the Blade’s coverage of Joanne Wack. All of this is clearly a response to the Blade. Enough of it already, let’s give Stainbrook a chance and stop this ridiculous witch-hunt.
And Mr. Brian Maxson, while you may be interested in discovering me, I can only respond with, how about Dale Jr. winning finally and your 1980s vintage beamer? What do you make of that? My shoulders are burning.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:08 amChris,
Can’t say I’d feel any different in your position. It’s all just wasted energy.
Dave,
Like Chris, you’re a GOPer with name recognition. Elected officials should not be working around the party. They should be helped and assisted by it.
I’d like to think I have character (I’ve never taken anything from anybody I shouldn’t have) and would like to be a part of a new Lucas County GOP. But I’m not going to join a faction.
June 19th, 2008 at 2:31 amKurt,
You’re SERIOUSLY kidding when you say that you think of yourself as a peacemaker, right? If so, then I guess your idea of a peacemaker and mine must be totally different.
Brian S,
Good to see you around again, welcome back!!
Confused,
Stick around, you’ll grow to love it here!
And on that note, I bid you all a good night. Play nice everyone!
June 19th, 2008 at 3:17 amsniff sniff
Kurt, that burning is your envy of me going to your head. You might want to get over it before your ears burn off, Kurt Busch. (ROFLMFAO so appropriate)
I root for Denny Hamlin.
My vintage BMW 325i convertable is running like a champ and still makes for a nice around-town car. It’s sitting in my driveway and you can see it on Microsoft’s Virtual Earth’s “Bird’s Eye” view! Shame they shot the picture on a workday, the wife had the 528 and I had my Pontiac GTP Winston Cup Track Car at work, otherwise I’d have had the driveway full!
I’m more pissed that you, Kurt, would have the gall to show up here and spout off your annoying drivel to call Lisa out for information you can get yourself. Not only are you this stupid to realize that everything Lisa posted is all her investigation, you’re going to call out her credibility? You? Calling out credibility?
You better pray your bosses don’t read these blogs and figure out your “Progressive” moniker to see how truly uneducated you turned out to be and a waste of their time.
And after all the “juvenile antics” you’ve pulled, this is the best you got? Yep, some things will never change…
Thanks Troy, I don’t take anything personal until it becomes personal. I do appreciate your acknowledgement and am softening up towards you with your participation on the sites. Thank you.
It must be Jon’s penis that is giving him advice, because anyone with an ounce of sense would know that you have to think BIG and have a THICK skin to accomplish the goal of dispatching the “culture of corruption” which allegedly permiated the LCRP headquarters before this recent election. Seeing that neither the BIG thinking and the THICK skin apply towards Jon, I’m faulting his tool for doing the thinking for him. And filing a lawsuit to get control of a site Chris is trying to give him? The effort speaks VOLUMES about where this “New Leader” is going to drag your Republican Party. Unification? That is not in Jon’s dictionary.
You still have time to wake up, Republicans.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:54 am“The site went down. Do you know why? ”
While it may seem like a coincidence, it may actually be just that. The party was notified months ago that the company hosting the site was shutting down and it needed to be moved when its annual hosting contract expired (I don’t know exact dates, but it expired earlier this year). The people I have talked to can’t confirm or deny that it was moved. This may actually have just been the hosting company shutting down it’s server.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:58 amBrian, no offense, but I’m waiting until 5pm Friday before I say something to you, other than this, because I don’t wanna jinx it.
(It is good to have you back, just so you know….)
June 19th, 2008 at 6:19 amBrian Shwartz, thanks. I admire your willingness to want to bring the party together and reach out to do your part. I was involved until recently for over 10 years and know too much I guess.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:00 am“I plan to contact Jon to discuss with him how this nonsense can end”
Brian Schwartz is awesome.
June 19th, 2008 at 1:00 pmJon will be my guest on Monday morning at 7:30a on 1370 WSPD. There will be no softballs thrown. I have plenty to ask but if you have questions send them to me at fred@wspd.com.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:20 pmAs a lifelong Republican, the current state of the Lucas County Republican Party is an embarrassment. We go from Tom Noe to Jon Stainbrook–whose first act as chair is to install his girl friend(or assistant as the Blade refers to her) as chair of the Central Committee.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:56 pmJack, just wait, it will get much, much worse before it gets better. Once Jon gets finished filing the zillions of lawsuits I am sure his a** kissing attorneys are working on right now and the criminal acts his current henchmen, err… I mean “administration” get finished doing, with The Blade running along side him with their pom pom’s in the air, it will make Noe like like a kid in Kindergarten.
Although to be fair, Jon, since I know you read this blog. You are the leader now you have chance to create a different future than the one I just spelled out. I don’t think you will do it… prove me wrong.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:59 amMany thoughts on this post that I’m just now getting to:
First off, Jack – check your facts. Meghan Gallagher was elected to her position, not installed by Jon. You must listen to WSPD, as Fred suggested this on yesterday’s show and it’s totally false.
Lisa – why don’t you confess to us your past transgressions so that we can judge you based solely on them, instead of judging you for the person you are today? That’s basically what the purpose of this post was, correct?? Your claim that your intention was to raise the question of whether or not Jon would be able to change the “culture of corruption.” Well, why not give him a chance first and then criticize if in a month, or two, or six down the road he fails? Everybody deserves a second chance… which I’m sure you’d agree considering your past that you’ve been open about, being homeless and poor and whatnot. I don’t know what exactly you expected when you started this whole thread, but you had to expect that you were going to get a lot of feedback on it, and a lot of it was going to be negative.
I’d also be interested in seeing the real facts behind your research. Such as how many of these convictions were thrown out, or were instances where the subject was a plaintiff, etc. I would consider it completely unfair if, say, one of the subjects you included was involved in a lawsuit regarding a car accident that wasn’t their fault. I’d do the research myself, but I have something called a job that requires a lot of my time… you know, earning money so I can pay my taxes and pay the mortgage on the house I own so that I can pay even more taxes….
June 20th, 2008 at 3:58 pmLet she without sin?
You said: Well, why not give him a chance first and then criticize if in a month, or two, or six down the road he fails?
The key to Wack’s truck didn’t turn yet when Jon delegated power to a coward that stole money from your fellow Republicans.
Explain that, please?
How can you even excuse that?
And a prominent Republican stood up to be recognized and was told to sit down and shut up. This person was one of a few that had funds stolen from this newly installed douchebag
That was Jon’s first decision after winning that election, and you’re going to try and intimidate a informational blogger over facts?
If this is the kind of ignorance wafting within the Republican realm these days, it’s really going to be a long, yet entertaining, summer.
I’m looking over these posts and it is crystal clear your stupidness is clouding your vision. Only 4 posters have voiced concern about Lisa’s resources, and each of them were your fellow “Jon Apologists”.
I rather enjoyed seeing each of you come out of the woodwork to defend this idiot, and I hope you keep defending him, because you’re all he has.
June 20th, 2008 at 4:51 pmBrian, that’s okay – this is mild compared to what I’ve gotten off the blog. You know someone was low enough to have threatened a family member with making some of her personal issues public if I didn’t stop. I had a really good idea how low some of these people would go after that. My 13 year old is not allowed to answer the phone unless it’s a number she recognizes because some of the assholes that are out there. We probably will end up changing our phone number which we shouldn’t have to.
I understand the mentality, accuse me, make it about me and then the truth of the situation won’t be focused on. I’ve posted to the beyond the dead horse state what criteria I used, and why I thought this was important and what my goal was which is a very simple question that has yet to be answered, “how can you claim to be eliminating the culture of corruption if those you select have a similiar background to those you made an issue of?”
This has made me question how worth it having this blog and actually paying for it, earning nothing for it is. Yet I also realize the other reason why I’m being attacked and the intimidation attempts are being made is to that I will quit blogging, or blog the way they want me to blog. Which is not going to happen.
I didn’t make this information up, it’s public record and it has been given to others who if I was wrong about it? Would have pointed it out. I’ve very clearly stated more than once, more than twice the reference points the search was done in.
This has also really made me think about the value of allowing people to post anonymousily as opposed to requring some type of a log in scenario. If all I am doing is providing a way for people to attack rather than to benefit from being able to particpating in relevant to the topic adult conversation, maybe a higher level of adult discourse would happen if I change the blog format. It’d be unfortunate to have to do that, but it’s getting to the point where it’s becoming unavoidable.
June 20th, 2008 at 5:58 pmAnd this is the group advocating putting the end to this alleged “culture of corruption” are the same people resorting to calling your home and threatening you?
LMFAO
Well, there’s only 94 more douchebags to go, huh?
It truly amazes me how a rag-tag conglomerate of juvenile morons can usurp a political party, file lawsuit after lawsuit, threaten and bully, yet clamor for the Blade to acknowledge them as a “formidable party” wanting to purge some claim of corruption because Joanne made some truthful remarks concerning members of Jon’s Charmin Club.
What a joke.
I can say that after witnessing their display on this thread.
And have yet answered any of the simple questions posed to them. Instead they babble about some easily-accessable information because they can’t spare the same 20 minutes of attacking you to research and verify themselves because they got a job.
This is how stupid they are.
Stupid. Moron. Idiot. The labels fit. Well done, Joanne. lol
June 20th, 2008 at 6:23 pm“Everybody deserves a second chance… which I’m sure you’d agree considering your past that you’ve been open about, being homeless and poor and whatnot”
Being homeless and poor is a crime? What is this, Oliver Twist’s England?
June 20th, 2008 at 6:29 pmBrian, I don’t have enough proof to accuse some of those engaged in the harrassment to point fingers. It could be people on the other side, it could be them. All I know is that it’s been quite an interesting adventure and it’s been much more difficult than when the nazi’s targeted me.
It would be unfair to assume…and despite the impression and the gut feeling I have, I have to be fair.
June 20th, 2008 at 6:33 pmNonetheless, it’s amazing the coincidence these events occured within the timeline of posting this very informative thread.
It’s showing everybody what is actually going on “behind the scenes”, regardless whether who denies what because “they can”.
I know right now it’s very easy to assume what the true problem is.
But after reading the contributions deflecting the point of the thread just reinforce the perception many already have of these ” Upstanding Republicans”.
Personally, petty party politics are insignificant, but what is being done is just wrong.
And these Friends of Jon really show us their agenda.
It really takes a sick and demented person to relish joy thinking their being funny screwing around with your family. It’s going to be too late for “Jon’s Fan Club” when it’s realised it got him nowhere but exposure.
Yep, 95 to go.
And staying home and being lazy instead of turning up and voting will bite them in the ass.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:23 pmerr…94
June 20th, 2008 at 7:25 pmNotice all the pom pom carriers for Jon who keep defending everyone’s criminal record has not addressed Matt Bartow. I guess it is a little harder to do when those charges weren’t dismissed and they actually amounted to what would have been a felony for theft from fellow Republican candidates. You have to love the hypocrisy of Jon’s cheerleaders.
Oh wait, I notice in looking back through the thread that one lone defender came forward for that scum bag Bartow. She says he was chosen because he was a good parliamentarian…. well that clears it all up then. Who cares if you are criminal if you are good at skill that is needed.
I hear Skilling, the ex-CEO of Enron was a pretty good manager, but once you factor in all that theft I doubt too many people would want to have hired him to manage a Taco stand, but using Jon’s supporter’s standards we really should have given the guy a second chance. Please give me a break.
Well, Jon any day now you want to clean out that criminal corruption in the party… still waiting.
June 20th, 2008 at 8:02 pmPlease “Let she who is without sin” we did not just fall off the turnip truck. Of course Stainbrook installed his “assistant” as chair of the Central Committee. Wasn’t she in the car with Stainbrook during is recent “unpleasantness” with the police.
As a recall from the Blade Kelly, you testified that a number of the challenged candidates actually voted. Apparently, you also have no credibility since the judge did not believe you.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:22 pmOne reason you may be getting so many threats is because when you search for Jon Stainbrook, your old blog comes up first.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:17 pmThis just in:
There seems to be ninety four process servers running amok in the community with documentation prohibiting a certain group of geniuses from posting on a certain blog site to keep their true intellect a secret.
Film at 11.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:23 pmThat’s true Chris, it is strange that a post that old gets google top ranking.
However, I rest easy because I am not an internet terrorist…
(lol)
June 20th, 2008 at 10:26 pmyet another attainable goal to strive for, missy
June 20th, 2008 at 10:29 pmNo, I’ll let Chris have that honor, I’m perfectly willing to accept not competing with him when it comes to that.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:31 pm# 120 Let she who is without sin Says:
June 20th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
“First off, Jack – check your facts. Meghan Gallagher was elected to her position, not installed by Jon.”
This is just plain stupid!
June 20th, 2008 at 10:42 pmTechnically she was elected, she was the only one on the Stainbrook ballot so Jon nominated her, but she was elected. Those present could have voted for the candidate presented by the former republicans in charge. Of course that wasn’t likely since they appear to have voted the exact ballot that was given to them by Stainbrook supporters, but it was possible…
The Executive Commitee members could be considered a different issue, if the Republican party works like the Democratic one does, they are appointed by the chair but are approved by the Central Commitee membership from what I understand of the process. I could be wrong since I don’t know the interworkings of the Republican Party but…that’s how I understood it to work.
One of you more expert in the ways of the Republican party can correct me if I’m wrong.
June 20th, 2008 at 10:51 pmSo here is what has happened more than once in the last few days: Some people I know come up to me and say: How does it feel to be an Internet terrorist? Then they giggle. I said, “Thank goodnes the Surpreme Court ruled that I can be tried in the US court system.”
June 20th, 2008 at 10:59 pmOh Right Not Again! Stainbrook’s “assistant” was elected not installed. A distinction, in this case, without a difference.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:12 amAh, Lisa, skirting around the issue and instead complaining of how you are such the victim for being the queen of all bloggers. Answer my question, why not give these people a chance? How would you like it if everybody just decided that they didn’t want to give your blog and opinions a chance because of what they could pull up in public records about you??
And Brian, for your information I do think it was a stupid move on Jon’s part to let Bartow have anything to do with the meeting. But at least he was only in power for about an hour, as compared to the felon who actually worked for and was paid by the Republicans. But I guess Wack is off-limits on this board for some reason.
And Emily, I never said that being poor and homeless was a crime. Re-read my post and tell me where exactly I said that.
June 21st, 2008 at 6:43 amnonetheless, without sin, my technically specific focused lemming, the decision was made.
why not give them a chance? I’ll answer that loaded question myself, seeing baiting the site owner is just too easy, you have an agenda that differs greatly than the GOP stands for.
Derailing the “Culture of Corruption” train you guys rode in on ain’t gonna derail if the first decision as your leader made was delegating meeting power to a corrupt man. And how are you even going to gain credibility when shit like that is happening? Clouded Vision.
If this is the direction “your group” is going to steer this party, you may as well swing down and pick Bernie up. There’s no difference.
The party was weak before Jon took power, now you’re weak and litigious. Suing everyone is the “New LC Republican”? Using your first decision as leader to install not just a thief, but someone that kept money from Republicans that watched their elections fail. Then send a fellow Republican an “intent to sue” letter from a lawyer to gain access to information and web materials that never were in GOP possession in the first place?
Please let me add that the web information was in the process of being given back, but Jon chose a lawyer instead of a phone call.
Unification?
what in the eff are you talking about?
That dosen’t piss you off? I’d be f**king furious, which is what many became but were “intimidated” by Jon’s conglomerate of morons which he surrounded himself with, so they just kept their mouths shut.
Next you’ll get some fat guy in a pitcher suit jumping through the walls with “Republican Love Juice”.
To even excuse this fake Republican cracks me up for that first decision. And to watch him drain the coffers to serve his personal agendas via lawyers should inspire mutiny by real Republicans.
So which Pro-Democrat bumper sticker did you have on your car in the lot that morning?
June 21st, 2008 at 7:29 amLet me add that Joanne Wack did not even make it to her truck before the newly-elected screwed his legacy up.
June 21st, 2008 at 7:33 am# 120 Let she who is without sin Says:
June 20th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I’d also be interested in seeing the real facts behind your research. Such as how many of these convictions were thrown out, or were instances where the subject was a plaintiff, etc. I would consider it completely unfair if, say, one of the subjects you included was involved in a lawsuit regarding a car accident that wasn’t their fault. I’d do the research myself, but I have something called a job that requires a lot of my time… you know, earning money so I can pay my taxes and pay the mortgage on the house I own so that I can pay even more taxes….
it’s 7:30 on a Saturday morning, and unless you’re a cashier or a stocker at Walmart, now would be a great time to re-read Lisa’s post and do some research to debunk her instead of taking the easy road.
June 21st, 2008 at 7:38 am“Let she who is without sin ”
Hypothetically speaking, as some claim we are all sinners at one time or another and continue to sin, wouldn’t that cause us to not speak about others at all?
June 21st, 2008 at 9:14 amSin, newsflash for you, I’m not a republican, I’m not an elected or appointed official and…here’s the big one for you *I’m not Jon Stainbrook.*
You continue to ignore what this whole post was about. Which is again…”how can Jon Stainbrook label the past of others to be the ‘culture of corruption’ when he selected people that have similar backgrounds.”
As to the question can people change? Sure they can but they actually have to stop doing whatever was in their past…As we have seen, everyone has a past, the question of should everyone have a public office or a party position has been determined as far as the local Republican Party goes. Or at least it is when it only applies to one side…
One of the hard parts about this scenario is knowing I’m one of the few who actually did honor what the concept of “off the record” or “in confidence” means. Considering what I do know, if it was my intention to really hurt people, I would have done it, and that would appear to include you as well Sin…
I can look myself in the mirror, I’m not so sure about you.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:11 pmOkay, I think the whole “culture of corruption” slogan was a criticism of the way the party was being run, not wether or not Bob Reichert got any speeding tickets. Who cares? All of this backround crap only came about once certain party members started “investigating” the new candidates in an attempt to have them removed. Jon followed suit in retaliation and to try and even the odds (I think both sides had people removed). Why does everyone seem to forget this? Wack, specifically, was singled out because of the infamous e-mail she sent on this topic, and once they got into her backround it just steamrolled (see chart…waaaay above^). And even though I think this is all ridiculous, if you throw out the traffic violations on both sides – can we all agree that this has nothing to do with character? -and redistribute the Wack block into it’s proper categories, I think you’ve got a pretty tight race. What IS the point of Wack having her own block anyway? I hope it’s to show how many cases an actual PAID official had on her record and not to say “see, if you take her out, then…”
Let’s see what Jon has to say about this Monday morning. Then we can argue some more. Nite.
June 21st, 2008 at 9:20 pmAlso, Jon has not given Mr. Bartow ANY power in the committee whatsoever. He ran the meeting, nothing more. While I do think this was a poor decision, his 60 minute reign of terror is over and we all made it out alive – nothing stolen – nothing shredded. It’s interesting to ME that some want to keep focusing on Bartow, while dodging the Wack issue. We could go back and forth like this forever. It won’t change a thing. Or we could go out and get ourselves elected in to the party and try to change it from within. Wait, some of us already did that
lol lets all be nice now instead, ok?
sorry, it would be different if it was his fifth decision or sixth decision, not his first.
Wack is completely irrelevent in perspective in this thread. Maybe part of the statistics, but that’s it.
The slogan is what Jon hung his hat on.
Sweet dreams.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:18 pmThe point of her having her own “block” was because she wasn’t an employee anymore when Jon won. Technically her’s should not count at all since she was not employed by the party but I knew if I did that, the whole issue from Stainbrook supporters would have been, “OMG you didn’t include her”.
I’ve been around long enough to have a good idea what’s going to happen next…
Let’s quote Jon directly:
It’s not as if I made this stuff up from thin air…If he’s about change from the culture of corruption then why is he tolerating those with similar records? Beyond the traffic things, liens, garnishments, bad checks, etc., some are recent. I am interested in what Jon says Monday but I’m willing to bet if he is asked that question, he skirts it and doesn’t answer it. If he really meant what he said? He’d ask them to resign, just as he demanded from the former Republicans. He’d lead by demonstrating what he expects of those who didn’t support him he demands of those who do.
Jon has already demonstrated he’s ignoring this issue, he’s no different from almost other political person, showing he doesn’t mean what he says. Anyone who knows me, knows my pointing that out may not make a difference but I still do, because eventually? People wake up…Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but if we don’t start demanding people actually follow through on what they state? We’re the ones responsible for the continual failures.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:21 pmAnd it should also be pointed out that it’s been reported that Bartow is working at the LRCP offices…He’s been seen there. So, he is still involved.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:23 pm“liens, garnishments, bad checks, etc., some are recent.”
This to me is enough to establish that a person is not someone you would trust. To say the least.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:52 pmThen why do employers do background checks that cover these types of things? Reality check please.
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:50 amNot everyone’s past matters, many employers don’t even ask if you have a non-felony record or civil cases, the issue is if the question is going to be that one person needs to quit, be fired, etc., then a standard has been set by that particular group. I think we all have established traffic records don’t matter to most, unless someone has been harmed or you are a car insurance agent.
How much do the other ones matter? Depends on what the standard is…Point being it shouldn’t be selective. Either judge all of those in that group by the same standards? Or don’t judge them…
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:08 amMay God bless you and yours in your promotion, or lack their of, of a desire to seek an end to corruption, except when in comes to your opposition to those who truly fight for the end of corruption.
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:10 amhey drama queen, you forgot your serious music CD.
sucks that the people you have faith in are losers, huh Kurt?
makes me wonder why you aren’t in on that battle….
Oh, it would be a worthy battle had someone with more credibility and a well-known ethical factor to be addressing alleged corruption in the party came forward to run for the leadership. It certainly would have garnered far more support from fellow Republicans.
But that person has yet to arrive.
Ain’t I right, close buddy of Jon Stain? You have this amusing habit of half-assing admitting to your relationships with people who drop the ball Kurt. Why is that? And why are we finding about this relationship via the blog owner and not you, Mr Full Disclosure?
Ah, the ethics classes you skipped are finally catching up to you.
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:06 amThey don’t ask LisaRenee because they check themselves.
You are absolutely right Not Again. A person with a history of liens, garnishments, bad checks, stealing from candidates etc. is not to be trusted.
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:13 amAgreed….
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:19 amIt is interesting that kurt the commie and the stain are best buddies. I wonder if stain allows kurt to rendezvous with he and boss Block to discuss political strategy?
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:29 amThis whole issue is important because of the incredible hypocracy being displayed. They literally crucify Joanne Wack(who should not have been working for the Republican Party) for her mistakes. Yet they ignore Bartow’s stealing from Republican candidates.
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:36 amStain and Block–there’s a intellectual powerhouse. The two of them together could not power a Christmas tree light.
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:40 amShulz – Some employers check these things, unfortunately for this argument, the LCRP does not. That is why I said that this is all pointless. I just mean to say that nobody is going to be booted or unable to run because of a parking ticket. Past that, we’re just going to have to judge these people by what they do in their respective positions going forward. Sucks, right?
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:22 pmMaxson – You seem to name-call and single people out constantly. Does that make you an internet “thug” or “moron”? Are YOU trying to intimidate people into silence on this topic? If you were arguing this way in favor of Stainbrook, one of the sensitive-types would have already suggested a slander lawsuit by now I’m sure. Maybe I’ll suggest to Jon that we dip further into the LCRP funds to pay for some yoga classes for you. You pick the CD.
Almost forgot – Lisa, what do you mean by saying Wack was not employed by the party? Am I missing something?
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:33 pmAt the time the research was done, and at the time of the election held by the Lucas County Republican party she was no longer an employee. That was I believe fairly well known.
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:38 pmI also find it really interesting that you are suggesting judging people on how they are from this moment forward when that was not done before. That was not the standard as it’s very clear that very few would dispute how dedicated Joanne was to her job and how many hours, at times her own personal time, in helping candidates to be elected. The claims made about the party financial issues somehow being her fault were never validated.
The negative focus totally ignoring her contributions basing dislike of her because let’s face reality, she didn’t help who Jon wanted her to help and her past allowed her to become a target. The amount of time and energy spent focusing on her is obvious when you realize that out of state records from almost two decades ago was sought out, no one has done that extensive of a check on any of the new membership, or even Stainbrook for that matter.
It’s a pretty clear double standard if the new leadership is not going to be judged the same, especially since the person behind that being an issue? Is now in charge. It’s interesting how that keeps being avoided and it keeps being suggested it’s only traffic when it’s pretty clear from the chart it’s a bit more than just traffic citations…
It’s been an interesting experiment in political science, watching people avoid or justify facts to suit their own personal agenda and of course the classic “shoot the messenger syndrome.”
You are right about using the word pointless though, it’s pointless at this point to debate this since it’s more than apparent that there is not going to be any demand from at least any of the supporters here for a double standard to not exist and the Blade will follow the same double standard, at least for now.
June 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pmLisa, I personally have never held Wack’s backround against her. I have always only been concerned with her witch hunt against the new candidates and her (at his point) alleged stealing and shredding. As I’ve said before, her backround was brought up only because of this. What would you have done if she were doing research on you – calling you stupid or crazy etc., and then you got in to HER backround… The only reason I mentioned her having her own block in your chart was because I think it suggested an “if it wasn’t for Wack…” point of view and I thought that was unfair since not only was she a part of the organization, she was the director and she was paid. Personally, I think both sides on this – Jon’s and yours – are pointless. I said before that I AM biased since being one of the new candidates on this thread immediately put me on the defensive. If anyone cares, I did what I did (voting Jon in) in an honest attempt to spark change and let the “fat cats” know that we are still holding them accountable, that their jobs are not safe, and that they still represent the people of Lucas county. It just offends me on a certain level that none of you are giving us any credit for acting instead of just talking/typing. At the very least, this has sparked dialogue and attention (both positive and negative) toward a dead party, and maybe even forced some of the old guard to be more active. At best, Jon comes through and the party is stronger for years to come. It just sucks that most seem too busy calling us morons and thugs and douchebags (etc.) to recognizing the brilliance in what we did – win or lose.
June 22nd, 2008 at 3:48 pmI was sharing what I felt was pointless, and I think we’ve seen 160 some comments later that those who support Jon no matter what, still do, those that don’t, still don’t. Those that thought Wack was some type of a monster, which some of his supporters did and do, are not willing to honestly examine the clear double standard and/or justify records trying to make them seem unimportant.
This is not just related to Jon Stainbrook, it’s a clear pattern in politics with supporters, always willing to believe and spread the negative about who they oppose and not wanting to believe anything but the positive from those they support. Personally, it’s why our two party system is such a mess because we don’t demand accountability. Way too many of us are not willing to not use a double standard, all the while decrying the supposed double standard of others.
Anyway…Jon’s not going to do anything about this, because he knows the same thing other political beings know, if it doesn’t affect your base and you have them convinced that it’s someone just being mean and picking on them? Absent the media placing pressure? They ignore it. It’s said you get the government you deserve, it also is true you get the political parties you deserve…
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:05 pmIt I find interesting is how absolutely obsessed these people are with Wack. It must have been incredibly time consuming to find a 20 year old conviction from an other state. Either that or they paid one of those commercial services.
Do any of these people actually have real jobs?
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:18 pmMaxson – You seem to name-call and single people out constantly. Does that make you an internet “thug” or “moron”? I guess it could, if you’re the focus of my rantings. Are YOU trying to intimidate people into silence on this topic? Silence? No, just holding them accountable for their comments. The “silence” is avoiding the question posed yet waste space attacking the messenger. It’s easy for you guys to avoid the facts and smokescreen with your perception of “justice”. Joanne Wack was fired right after her court case, not when Jon was elected. If you were arguing this way in favor of Stainbrook, one of the sensitive-types would have already suggested a slander lawsuit by now I’m sure. It’s not slander if the statements are factual. Maybe I’ll suggest to Jon that we dip further into the LCRP funds to pay for some yoga classes for you. You pick the CD. Might I suggest you keep your GOP funds and utilize them for fellow Republicans, but thanks!
Besides, I already have everything The Crystal Method has released.
BTW, did your vehicle have pro-democrat stickers?
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:26 pmSo true LisaRenee, we Republicans got what we deserve. I include myself in that group. I turned down a chance to run for the Central Committee because I was “too busy”. Now the party is controlled by these people.
I am very disgusted with myself for sitting back and letting these types take control.
June 22nd, 2008 at 4:34 pmLisa, point taken and I basically agree with you. I hate the system that we have in place and I am trying to do what I can to change it within my limited resources/time. I cannot predict what will happen, but at least now I will have a say in it (I hope). I just think it’s time for us GenX’ers to start taking ownership of our country and to start trying to fix some of the things the ‘boomers have broken. Maybe, love us or hate us, actions like this this will light that fire. I hope so.
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:06 pmJo, thank you for finally stating the obvious. More than 1/2 of the central committee spots were empty before our effort. If you republican bloggers really wanted to have a say in your party, the opportunity has always been there. Don’t fault us for doing what you were unwilling to do yourselves! It is much easier to criticize than to lead, right?
point made
questions posed, questions addressed promptly
reciprocity denied
and you perceive me as a thug, huh?
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:20 pmI certainly agree with your last paragraph. Too many of us sat back and assumed that Stainbrook could never be elected chairman–even with the help of the Blade. Now the entire community will suffer for that miscalculation.
From what I have observed, Stainbrook has neither the talent or temperment for that office. He also seems to surround himself with even less qualified people.
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:26 pmMaxson – Just trying to point out a few double-standards on your side of this debate and wanted to leave it at that. Instead of making your points in a respectful manner, you resort to name calling, yet continue to call the 100+ individuals you have never met (myself included) “thugs”. I have no problem with you arguing your perspective, just the way you go about it. I don’t know what else you want me to address. Let’s see, my comment about slander was to illustrate the fact that you have got away with immature comments and general rudeness repeatedly in this thread without criticism where others (on the opposing side) have not. I didn’t actually mean to suggest a lawsuit be filed – just making a point. The yoga = just settle down a bit. AND no Crystal Method discs IN, or stickers of any sort ON my vehicle.
And to be fair, couldn’t those 2 vehicles have belonged to some of the observers who were there (seemed to be between 10-20 of them), or maybe even spouses/significant others. Maybe not, but neither of us know for sure.
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:44 pmJo, not to defend The Blade and their oft-times one-sided coverage, but they did not help us win at all. They only started covering this after we were all elected, and we were going to show up regardless. The old cheifs all voted for Reichert, the new for Stainbrook – so no opinions were swayed. What you think would have happened was that the remaining precinct chairs would have MADE SURE to show up if they truly dreaded the thought of Jon winning. All we can do is speculate as to why they didn’t. Apathy? Prior engagements? Didn’t think he had a chance? Maybe some wanted this to happen, but didn’t want to show up and vote against their peers. I really don’t know.
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 pmDouble standards? um……ok.
What, are you under the assumption that I wouldn’t have a dialouge with you?
If you and your ilk can only resort to avoiding the topic of the post and focus on Wack, attacking Lisa, avoiding direct questions posed to your ilk by myself and others on this thread, and then insult my intelligence with your posts, then why would I address those knuckleheads with respect?
Then come to find out that there allegedly issues pertaining to personal attacks towards a certain family because of the topic which was posted.
Where’s the respect in that?
Yeah, out of 99 of you alleged fans of Jon, there are clowns amongst you that feel that by allegedly resorting to these actions it was supposed to illicit some sort of fearful response, then there are others amongst that group that are familiar with or have knowledge of those antics.
But I’ll bet a shiny nickle you’re one of those on the “outside”.
And you want to know something, Kid? I am a rude person. But I only treat in-kind.
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:22 pmPlease Kidkoffee we all know the relationship between Block and Stainbrook and how/why it developed. The Blade’s favorable coverage of Stainbrook start long before the March primary.
However, that being said, the responsibility for Stainbrook and his merry band winning ultimately belongs to those of us who sat on our hands and did not want to get involved.
I don’t know why others stayed home, but I did not believe that any sane person with an IQ higher than a chair would vote for Stainbrook. Apparently, those are traits now lacking on the Central Committee.
The Country survived(barely my parents tell me) Jim Carter, so we will survive Stainbrook’s(hopefully short) tenure.
June 22nd, 2008 at 6:58 pmOkay, this will have to be my last post tonight so don’t accuse me of avoiding anything if I don’t respond until later.
June 22nd, 2008 at 7:53 pmMaxson – What questions are you accusing me of dodging, or are you? If you have a direct question for me other than the one about bumper stickers, I will gladly answer to the best of my ability. And I am sorry if you or Lisa or anyone else deem my questions about the validity of these stats as an “attack.” I think I have made my opinions very clear in regards to the original post, and you may even find that they differ from Jon’s as I have not spoken with him since last Saturday. And just to make it perfectly clear, I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about any personal attacks and would/do condemn them just as strongly as I resent your sophomoric name-calling.
Jo – Your entire last post reeks of sour grapes. I am not confirming or denying Jon’s relationshp with The Blade, I just don’t think that they changed the outcome of this race. I also appreciate that you at least take responsibility for not acting, but you happily jump on the insult bandwagon and streotype people you’ve never met just like the rest. I’d love to sit down with you and take an IQ test, but that would inevitably only lead to a debate about who’s dad can beat up who’s.
Like Lisa said earlier, no opinions are being changed here. It would just be nice if points/counterpoints could be made without all the insults. Take a step back from this and see who looks silly here (all opinions aside). I’m not going to cry mysef to sleep, but by lumping us all together you are directly insulting me, and I am just trying to defend myself and get a few points across in the process. I can only speak for myself, and while you may be right about some, you are definitely wrong about me and others that I am still in touch with. So please, if you must stereotype, at least do us the courtesy of aknowledging that it may not apply to all. Maybe just use the word “some” once in a while. Chris Meyers, who is actually involved in this and has met some of us, did as much.
Sorry Kid, but no sour grapes, since I am not and never have been a member of the Central Committee nor am I related to anyone who sits on the Republican Central Committee.
However, I have had the opportunity to view Stainbrook from a distance. Nuff said.
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:04 pmthank you for your insight
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:31 pm