Clearing up That Late-February McEwen Puff Piece

This e-mail was sent a week ago Tuesday to Wade Linville at the Georgetown News Democrat in response to his Febuary 26 article about Bob McEwen’s candidacy. It disputes two points:

1. McEwen’s claims to have “pushed for improvements in Southern Ohio” as a lobbyist, when in a Dayton Daily News candidates’ meeting in June of last year, even under pressure to do so, he appears to have named no local-area clients who would have been involved in such “improvements.”
2. His claim of contrition at the impending finding that he violated Ohio Election Law by calling himself “Congressman McEwen” in print, on the radio, and on TV. The article made no reference to the fact that his counsel vigorously disputed the claim at the probable cause hearing in January that preceded it (after trying to convince me to be the second person to allow him to “go and sin no more” without a hearing — yeah, right, we see how well THAT worked). It also ignored the fact that the probable cause panel’s 4-0 finding made the finding of a violation a virtual certainty at the then-impending seven-member full committee hearing (the final result was 6-1). In other words, contrition on the part of McEwen only appeared when it became the sole remaining option for avoiding a penalty beyond a reprimand.

Links are added that were not in the e-mail. Here goes, with additional italicized editorial comments clearly identified:

Subject: McEwen Background
From: biz@bizzyblog.com
Date: April 4, 2006 12:34:48 PM EDT

Wade,

Thanks for speaking with me today. I apologize for the length of this e-mail, but I need to bring up a couple of concerns I have with your article about Bob McEwen back in February.

The first is that Bob’s description of his lobbying efforts runs counter to an experience recounted by Eric Minamyer, one of his opponents during last year’s 2nd District primary in June, describing a group interview he was in at the Dayton Daily News.

Here’s what you reported:

As a lobbyist, McEwen also pushed for improvements in Southern Ohio, such as funding for water plants and road improvements.

What Minamyer reported (and the link) about the meeting is after my signoff. I verified that it was Minamyer who posted it in an e-mail exchange with him at the time. The key point is that when under considerable pressure to say something, anything, about domestic clients he had during his lobbying career, he could name none, and certainly not any that involved “pushing for improvements in Southern Ohio.” At a minimum, it seems odd that he could not do so. (At worst, it’s possible there are none. –Ed.)

The second concern is that, though Mr. McEwen intended not to, and did not, contest the Ohio Elections Commission complaint I filed at the full-committee hearing that took place on March 16, his lawyer DID attempt to contest the complaint at the probable cause hearing that preceded it on January 11. The probable cause hearing ruling was 4-0. As the Elections Commission has 7 members, it was obvious he would lose (and did — Ed.) at the full-committee hearing without new defensive evidence, which of course did not exist. So it was way too easy in my view to let him off with a position of contrition when the handwriting was on the wall without disclosing what happened at the probable cause hearing that preceded it.

I intend to post a rearranged version of this e-mail at BizzyBlog.com in the next day or two (oh well, make it nine. — Ed.), so any response you might have to this would be welcome. (None was received. — Ed.)

Regards,
Tom Blumer
BizzyBlog.com

+++++++++++++

Minamyer June 2005 Post at NixGuy:

I was interviewed by the Dayton Daily News at the same time that Bob McEwen, Jeff Morgan and Jean Schmidt. We were all asked what we had been doing for a living. Mr. McEwen said he worked for AAI. He was asked what that was, he said it was a consulting firm. What type of consulting? Well you get the picture.

Eventually he uttered the word “lobbyist.” (I’ve been told by McEwen’s campaign manager that he had no reason to be ashamed of being a lobbyist. Uh-huh. — Ed.) He was asked to name clients. He responded they were companies in need of assistance with government red tape. But who are they? Again you get the picture.

Eventually he named his clients all of whom were foreign governments and foreign companies doing business with the US. Remember he was a representative to the European Congress after leaving Congress.

I was a bit surprised by all this and even more surprised that no newspaper has ever reported that he makes his living representing foreign interests. (That makes at least two of us, Eric.)

The answers finally given by him to the questioning by the editor explain his attempts to avoid giving a staight answer. As a trial lawyer, I admired the interrogation very much…..

Comment by Eric Minamyer — 6/9/2005 @ 11:48 pm

_______________________________

UPDATE: If the News Democrat will let itself get bamboozled by McEwen as just described, why should anyone take their endorsement of him seriously? How about this for a “cut and run” sentence by a gutless editorial writer — “We won’t even talk about Schmidt’s exploits in the few months she has been in office.” Uh, folks, an editorial is supposed to discuss the incumbent’s current record. I’m left to assume that you don’t want to talk about her War on Terror support.

UPDATE 2: Yes, I know that Eric Minamyer has endorsed McEwen. Politics makes very strange bedfellows, and his current endorsement doesn’t affect the validity of Minamyer’s account of the meeting that occurred when he was running against McEwen and nine others last spring.