No Vice Pepper?
In Greg Korte's latest article on the Convergys negotiations he lists this tidbit:

Luken's antagonist in this unfolding City Hall power play has been Councilman David Pepper, a 32-year-old first-term fellow Democrat who disagrees with Luken more often about the role of City Council than on politics or policy.

Does this solidify Alicia Reece's hold on the office of Vice Mayor? Pepper received the most votes in the 2001 council election, and under the old rules, would have been mayor, assuming no Luken in the race as competition. Pepper stands a good chance of being number 1 in the vote totals this year. This conflict, however, would logically put Pepper's chances in the dumper for Vice Mayor. Conventional Wisdom would have kept Reece in the role for PR reasons (race relations), assuming she is in the upper half of vote getters. Vice Mayor is mostly a ceremonial title, but it looks good on a resume when seeking higher office.

Washington Senator Maria Cantwell Boosts Springer
Current junior U.S. Senator from Washington Maria Cantwell (D) gave support to Jerry Springer's Campaign:

"I think people will be surprised by his intellect," the Washington state Democrat told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "There's much more to him than his TV show. He's an incredibly smart person."

According to the AP article, Cantwell was an unpaid campaign worker for Springer during his 1977 Council run. This would have been during Cantwell's time at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Cantwell is originally from Indiana.

Convergys Deal: Ups and Downs
Things are happening as the negotiations go on, but it reads like a roller coaster:
From the Post:
Convergys says no dice
Convergys employees seem to like status quo
From WCPO:
Convergys Talks Break Down Again
Convergys Talks May Be On Again
From the Enquirer:
City offer $18M shy of Convergys' liking

10th Most Literate City?
Via reader Sam: A University of Wisconsin-Whitewater study has placed Cincinnati at #10 on the ranking of America's 64 largest cities. Say what you want about Cincinnati but we do have a wonderful library system, good local university, 2 local daily newspapers, a couple of weeklies and a great monthly.

FOX News Still in Court
The case goes on with the appearance by the former FOX News reporter who wrote the allegedly libelous article. FOX News still looks like it will do fine, unless the jury is really anti-FOX. I am surprised this issue is only getting local coverage. I can't find any report of it anywhere else. I would figure the right-wing bloggers would be all over this trial. I guess they don't pay much attention to Cincinnati, unless we have riots.

Wells: Bush Speak
I am glad there is no Uranium in Cincinnati. I don't know what is out at the Fernald Plant still, but at least that is 18 miles away. On Bush Wells is wrong. He is not wrong about the facts, he is wrong about the analysis, or at least does not go far enough in his analysis of the importance of Bush’s credibility on the reasons for war with Iraq. He is correct about what Bush stated here in Cincinnati v. the SOTU, but he is wrong on the importance of the reason we went to war. War was claimed to be justified because Iraq posed a serious and immediate threat to our Allies, our overseas assets, and the USA itself. Well, that is what we were sold on anyway. Iraq could not wait for inspectors, because Saddam was a threat. We could not wait to gain the support of France and Russia and the rest of the world because he was a threat now (meaning pre-war).

Would Congress have supported the War if we knew that there was no real nuclear threat? Would Congress have supported war if we knew there was no immediate threat from chemical or biological weapons? Would the American People have supported this war in the numbers that did if we knew that Iraq was really far less a threat to us than North Korea? The answer to all is No.

So it does matter about "16 words." Those words are the tip of the iceberg. The basis for this war was false. This war was about geopolitical positioning and personal vendettas, not about protecting America from a serious threat. Belittling the importance of holding Bush to truthful and honest statements is nothing but a diversion and rationalization. The ends still do not justify the means. No one, of consequence, wants Saddam back, that would be ludicrous. Claiming that those who wish to hold Bush accountable for his action are just anti-war liberals is just a head fake. If you can only defend Bush by saying he comments don’t matter, then you might as well just get rid of the Presidency. If his words don’t matter, then having a president must also be just as meaningless.

Cincinnati Reaction to Bush's WMD Manipulation
The New York Times has an article today giving a sense of the views of several local Cincinnati area residents. The article gets a wide sample of quotes from various local people from all sides of the political spectrum. Cincinnati is a bellwether for Bush's reelection. If Bush does not win big locally, he will loose Ohio and the overall election.

Steve Gilliard at DailyKos had this link and has comments discussing Bush's overall current predicament. I myself am disgusted with Bush. His performance in this exhcange from today's press conference with Blair illustrates the fault line of Bush's credibilty:

Q Mr. President, others in your administration have said your words on Iraq and Africa did not belong in your State of the Union address. Will you take personal responsibility for those words? And to both of you, how is it that two major world leaders such as yourselves have had such a hard time persuading other major powers to help stabilize Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: First, I take responsibility for putting our troops into action. And I made that decision because Saddam Hussein was a threat to our security and a threat to the security of other nations.

I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision, to put together a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein. Because the intelligence -- not only our intelligence, but the intelligence of this great country -- made a clear and compelling case that Saddam Hussein was a threat to security and peace.

I say that because he possessed chemical weapons and biological weapons. I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. And I will remind the skeptics that in 1991, it became clear that Saddam Hussein was much closer to developing a nuclear weapon than anybody ever imagined. He was a threat. I take responsibility for dealing with that threat.

We are in a war against terror. And we will continue to fight that war against terror. We're after al Qaeda, as the Prime Minister accurately noted, and we're dismantling al Qaeda. The removal of Saddam Hussein is an integral part of winning the war against terror. A free Iraq will make it much less likely that we'll find violence in that immediate neighborhood. A free Iraq will make it more likely we'll get a Middle Eastern peace. A free Iraq will have incredible influence on the states that could potentially unleash terrorist activities on us. And, yeah, I take responsibility for making the decisions I made.

Bold added.

I am sure partisan conservatives loved the confrontational response to the question. They like the brashness and defiance of the Press. Their "fearless leader" can do no wrong. They are overjoyed that Bush is "fighting back" against the "partisans."

Everyone else, I think, is either disgusted like me, or greatly disappointed that Bush failed to take responsibility for his actions. Instead of stopping the Buck, Bush refused to acknowledge it exists. His answer to a question of responsibility for his actions is a recitation of "ends justify the means." Swagger and defiance are great for John Wayne War movies, but Henry Fonda and Jimmy Stewart showed how real people lived with dignity, honor, and respect that had value, not just comic book drama.

What further makes me cringe is the continuing trail of Clintonesque semantics. Bush said, “I say that because he possessed chemical weapons and biological weapons.” He further revised his history with this exchange:

Q Mr. President, in his speech to Congress, the Prime Minister opened the door to the possibility that you may be proved wrong about the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
Q Do you agree, and does it matter whether or not you find these weapons?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you might ask the Prime Minister that. We won't be proven wrong --
PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: No.
PRESIDENT BUSH: I believe that we will find the truth. And the truth is, he was developing a program for weapons of mass destruction.
Now, you say, why didn't it happen all of a sudden? Well, there was a lot of chaos in the country, one. Two, Saddam Hussein has spent over a decade hiding weapons and hiding materials. Three, we're getting -- we're just beginning to get some cooperation from some of the high-level officials in that administration or that regime.
But we will bring the weapons and, of course -- we will bring the information forward on the weapons when they find them. And that will end up -- end all this speculation. I understand there has been a lot of speculation over in Great Britain, we've got a little bit of it here, about whether or not the -- whether or not the actions were based upon valid information. We can debate that all day long, until the truth shows up. And that's what's going to happen.
And we based our decisions on good, sound intelligence. And the -- our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind.

Note the “truth” we will find is that he (Saddam Hussein) was developing a program for WMD. What about the threat of existing WMD Hussein was alleged to possess? Will we find those? Is this some kind of game? Pin the tail on the Dubya? Who is actually buying this crap? I can’t imagine the level of rationalizing it would take to believe this administration’s statements on WMD. Ok, well, I can imagine it, but it gives me the creeps.