The Buckeye State Blog Blowup: So Far e-Mails Show Sharp Words, No Extortion

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Jerid Kurtz, the current proprietor of Ohio's Buckeye State Blog, has shipped to The Bellwether a string of private e-mail from March and April 2007 between himself and Democratic political consultant Paul Ackerman, a founder of the blog with whom he's had a falling out. The correspondence won't be reproduced verbatim here -- suffice it to say there are some personal things discussed. Those portions are neither racy nor outrageous so don't get the wrong idea. They simply touch on neighbors, or events that happened while growing up, and they really are nobody's business.

However, in the pertinent portions of the e-mails about the feud, Ackerman and Kurtz swap and exchange sharp words about Buckeye State Blog content, the reach or circulation of the blog, how much an ad would cost, and who might be likely to see it. Strip away the personal animosity between Ackerman and Kurtz that erupts in their private exchange, and the correspondence is pretty bland fare. Recently, Kurtz has said he felt Ackerman was trying to shake him down because of some of the words used in the March set of e-mail, which is something that I was not able to read into the e-mails that I have seen. Kurtz has also explained in a separate e-mail to me the shakedown remark was an unfortunate comment not meant to imply extortion. It was a riff that grew out of his opinion of Robin Weirauch, an OH-05 congressional candidate who was a client of Ackerman's consulting firm. I will quote from that e-mail:

''However, I won't let anyone maintain a chip that they think they can use against me or the site. Please keep in mind this particular blowup sparked from a Columbus political consultant that is unhappy with how I describe one of his former (and perhaps future) clients, Robin Weirauch (who for all I know is a perfectly wonderful woman). I'd say his threat reflects poorly on Paul's acumen.

"And, that claim that I made that forced Paul to threaten me?

"'His problems linger from past issues with that site, and with not being able to shake me down when he's contacted me previously. First time I ever conversed with the guy he was an ass (was pissy asking for site statistics, and gave me some lip about Russell lying to him.'"

"A simple misunderstanding. He interpreted the statement I made to mean I was claiming he was extorting me for money. In the context of the sentence, I just meant he was shaking me down for current site statistics (which I try to avoid advertising are in fact accessible to the public via blogads. Generally, nothing good comes out of a request for statistics). Regardless, an email my way from Paul during our blowup could have clarified that that wasn't what I was implying.

"Sorry to bug ya' or drag you in."

Kurtz also forwarded a copy of Ackerman's message from Monday Sept. 10 that demands a formal retraction of the shakedown allegation. Ackerman contends he has been defamed. (I won't quote verbatim what he says because he didn't send me the message himself).

The feuding between the now-fractured Buckeye State Blog family members appears to be continuing. Will Ackerman accept Kurtz's retraction? Or will there be some sort of legal action? At the moment, it still seems to be up in the air.

Ohio Democratic Activist Paul Ackerman: Alleges Buckeye State Blog Inflated Readership Stats

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- There's little question that Buckeye State Blog has a national reputation as the most influential and important Democratic voice in the Ohiosphere. Now there's an ugly allegation that falsified readership data was posted online by BSB last year in an effort to boost its significance and denigrate As Ohio Goes, another progressive blog based in Ohio.

Some might be tempted to write the tempest off as pointless. Who cares if a blog inflates its readership with bogus numbers? But the truth is, honesty is an important quality. It is about character. It is about not cheating. It is about not being corrupt. It is about not being a deceiver or a fraud. It is about not saying one thing and hiding another. It is about not being a political voice who points out the ethical flaws in others while dismissing one's own. It is about not practicing what one preaches. It's about not being part and parcel of the truth-stretching political crowd.

This is what appeared in a comment from a BSB founder last year:

""Submitted by staff on Thu, 08/03/2006 - 9:03pm.
You're hilarious.
I think we are done. Enjoy hickman and whacky andy.
ps - thats 1 million visitors, not views - i have over 3 million views. Keep dreamin'"

But this week the claim of one million visitors and over three million views has been described as a falsehood by Ohio Democratic political consultant Paul Ackerman, a BSB insider who has been booted after a falling out with the blog's administrator. A disagreement about the vacancy in Ohio's 5th Congressional District escalated into rancor. It started over a minor point -- a discussion about who might be among the likely candidates to succeed Republican Paul Gillmor, who died earlier this week after falling down the stairs in his suburban Washington apartment.

As things grew more heated, Ackerman wrote:

"And as for Russell? Yes, he did lie about statistics on BSB. The thread where he bragged about hitting 1 million visitors and 3 million views is here. [Ed Note: It appears above]. At the time he posted that, I still had full access to the sitemeter account that I had created for this place and I knew it was complete bullshit. I must admit I wasn't all that concerned at the time, and when in a private moment I mentioned it to him, he laughed and said something like it made BSB look better. No surprise that he changed the password to the sitemeter account right after that."

Ackerman's post is troubling. He says BSB published the false claim about its statistics during the same point in time when Ohio Democrats, and the blog, were actively denouncing the culture of corruption that led to Tom Noe and the BWC scandal. Did the blog have its own culture of corruption?

I sincerely hope that there were no falsehoods about statistics, no inflated numbers, no disgrace or fall from grace. But the episode -- from what is known so far -- appears distressing at least, dishonest at most. Was somebody in the Ohiosphere so ethically challenged they could utter an untrue statement and think nothing of it at all? In other words, does lying come that easy? And one more question: Aren't Democrats supposed to be better than that?