October 23, 2006

Kirsten Powers’ Condition Met

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:04 pm

At her blog last week, the sensible liberal siren had this to say about the Strickland hiring:

If it is true that Strickland knew about these offenses — and this needs to be confirmed — and didn’t a) fire him and b) disassociate himself from this person, then the Republicans have a legitimate issue, especially in light of the criticism Hastert has received for his lack of oversight on Foley (criticism I have made myself).

Condition — met:

The smoking gun in the case against Ted Strickland are the police reports he was provided in 1998 documenting that his then-campaign manager was guilty of sexual misconduct in the presence of minors.


I have now thoroughly documented that at the end of the 1998 campaign, Strickland was sent police reports that documented 1994 criminal offenses in which his ’98 campaign manager had committed sexual violations in the presence minors.

And this:

I have independently confirmed that Strickland was presented with at least the Washington County arrest records in the final phase of the 1998 campaign.

The Kirsten Powers’ Conclusion: Issue — legitimate.


UPDATE: My “sense of the Alliance” is that there should be a subsection (c) added to Article III, Section B, Paragraph (2) of the State of Ohio Blogger Alliance’s Supersecret Charter that reads: “Any post containing a reference to Kirsten Powers shall be required to have a suitable and current photograph of Ms. Powers on display.”

Accordingly, because, and ONLY because of the overwhelming sentiment I am sure I will find in favor of having the additional language added, I am hereby required to display the following (for compliance purposes only, of course):



  1. I agree with the Kristen Powers rule.

    Even for a lefty she’s cute.

    Comment by Mark McNally — October 23, 2006 @ 10:25 pm

  2. #1, That makes a consensus. :–>

    Comment by TBlumer — October 23, 2006 @ 11:38 pm

  3. Is there any proof that Strickland actually had the records in 1998? Corsi declares a “smoking gun”…but there’s no proof I’ve seen for what he says.

    Does Corsi have a copy of the anonymous letter?

    Comment by Ms. Readerworth — October 24, 2006 @ 7:52 am

  4. I approve… :)

    Comment by Matt Hurley — October 24, 2006 @ 11:07 am

  5. #3, If he does have the anon letter itself, it’s nice but not necessary, because as excerpted above:

    I have independently confirmed that Strickland was presented with at least the Washington County arrest records in the final phase of the 1998 campaign.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 24, 2006 @ 11:53 am

  6. I have independently confirmed that Strickland was presented with at least the Washington County arrest records in the final phase of the 1998 campaign.

    And then he summarily fails to detail what he’s verified and how – he’s just said it, over and over again. Again, what is his evidence? Is it the original letter? How did he verify it? Who gave him the information? How does he know it’s valid?

    You wouldn’t take this level of obfuscation from the Cleveland Plain Dealer or Columbus Dispatch – why is it gospel from Jerome Corsi?

    Comment by Ms. Readerworth — October 25, 2006 @ 8:11 am

  7. #6, note that the Strickland campaign has never denied what Corsi claims, and it would in a heartbeat if it could. That tells me has it buttoned down tight.

    Larger point: I’m supposed to accept the daily barrage of “informed sources” and “high-level administration officials” quoted in news stories, but I can’t accept at face value a contention from the guy who co-wrote the 99.9% accurate Unfit for Command? Please.

    My guess is that “Ohio Concerned Citizen” is the same person who submitted the docs to Strick eight years ago, but I really don’t care.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 25, 2006 @ 9:31 am

  8. So, sans any actual presentation of evidence, you’re inclined to believe a guy who writes alongside Chuck Norris and anti-aging snake oil products without seeing a shred of evidence. Enough said.

    Comment by Ms. Readerworth — October 26, 2006 @ 9:08 am

  9. #8, that’s a really mature argument (/sarcasm). When you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.

    You want to out Corsi’s anonymous sources. I’m assuming you’ll hold newspapers to the same standard. Ha.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 26, 2006 @ 11:12 am

  10. Tom, I do hold newspapers to the same standard. My question is why you don’t.

    I’ve asked the only question that needs asking in refuting the message – a question you answer not by validating the message, but by lionizing the messenger. If the message is valid because of the messenger, then it can be called into question because of the messenger.

    Basic argumentation, dear boy. Now, tell me why I should believe unsubstantiated rumors on a fringe site like WND, and do so in a way that doesn’t contradict your complaints against the MSM or ask me to believe blindly in Jerome Corsi’s unfailing accuracy.

    Comment by Ms. Readerworth — October 28, 2006 @ 12:58 pm

  11. #10, I have seen the evidence. The only question is whether Strickland saw it along with the anonymous letter.

    I believe Corsi that he did, partially because I believe him, and partially because Strickland has wiggled his way from *anonymous tip* (heavy implication, given that it was in the late 1990s: a phone call, or perhaps a brief e-mail) to *anonymous letter*.

    Now I suppose you want to hold on to the idea that someone would bother to write a letter about such a serious matter and send it to Strickland wthout supporting documentation. Odds: VERY, VERY low.

    Corsi has said he knows that Strickland had the documentation in addition to the anonymous letter. It makes sense (i.e., it is NOT blind faith), my belief is further bolstered by his track record, and we are not in a courtroom. Nobody is lionizing anyone, I only see someone (you) trying to demonize someone.

    What is really sad about this line of thought is that even if by some long shot Strickland did not have the docs, he was one phone call away from confirming or denying what someone who went to the trouble of sending him a letter informed him of. So in a significant way it does not even matter, even though meeting the condition set by Kirsten Powers was worth it just to have chance to show her picture. :–>

    You are being a condescending PITA. WND is no more *fringe,* and in fact has been probably less *fringe*, than the NYT has been since it got BDS about 3 years ago, with its raft of anonymous sources making stuff up without accountablility (I am assuming by your standard that you have bought into nothing Bush-related that the Times has published based on anonymous sources, in which case there is almost nothing left in the Old Grey to read on the topic.

    I am not lionizing the messenger, but somehow you think you have the right to shoot the messenger. Horsecrap. I am done with you, unless you have a new argument.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 28, 2006 @ 1:28 pm

  12. #10, you should also know that “Ohio Concerned Citizen” has spoken with Corsi and Scott Pullins. So it is not just one person with the independent verification.

    Comment by TBlumer — October 28, 2006 @ 2:20 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.