What We're For and What We're Against

We at P-Town Underground have decided to moderate all comments that come into the website. That means that we will review all comments we receive before allowing them to appear in the comment section after each post. We have already received several very abusive comments that we don't feel deserve to be promoted here. (If you want to make such comments, start your own blog, don't use ours.) So far we have been accused of being bigots, rednecks, hypocrites, homophobes, and worse. We have also been accused of being "against women," because we have presented facts from news stories that appear to reflect negatively on candidate Jane Murray. On the other hand we have received comments that are really accusations against Murray, other candidates, or even other private citizens that the commenters seem to believe we may agree with. We have chosen not to pass on such comments that are undocumented or speculative in nature. If you want to spread these statements, please use another forum. Regarding the charges some have made against us: 1) Are we against women? If one of us were to make a statement for or against Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, or Condoleezza Rice based on whether we believe that person is a good candidate or not, would that make us "anti-women"? Of course not. So if you want to accuse us of being "misogynists," as one writer has, without any evidence to back it up don't expect your comment to be shared on this site. Our questions for Jane Murray so far (with more in the coming days) are simply: a) questions we have heard around town from others b) questions no one else seems to be asking of the candidate c) questions based on actual news stories from other sources and based on the candidate's statements and behavior during the campaign, which should concern any intelligent person. 2) Are we against homosexuals? No, but many homosexuals share a left-wing agenda that we definitely oppose. Mr. Johnson's statements that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle concern us greatly. Based on the article we presented yesterday, we would be fools not to believe that Johnson has an agenda that he has not shared with the voters of the City of Portsmouth. A liberal agenda that may include many elements that the voters would be strongly opposed to, if only they knew: medical and other benefits for domestic partners and same-sex couples (paid for by the citizens) as Mr. Johnson was able to pass in Concord, California; promotion of so-called gay marriage (in spite of the Ohio constitution which defines marriage as between one man and one woman), and probably many other values considered mainstream in San Francisco, but strongly against the beliefs of many in Portsmouth. Mr. Johnson himself shared his agenda for Portsmouth in the pages of the San Francisco Chronicle, but he has yet to share it with us. We believe that is hypocrisy. As the SF Chronicle stated, quoting Johnson himself:

Doubtless, he won't stay quiet for long in Portsmouth, Ohio."I've already got a list of 700 names back there, people with political issues to call," he says, letting loose another raspy belly laugh. "Gawd, I love it!"

The local media have not seen fit to tell us, but the people of Portsmouth have a right to know before November 3. We will surely know after! As far as Mr. Johnson medical condition, we certainly have not put out any confidential information. Mr. Johnson shared many details of his condition, including his T-cell count, treatment, and prognosis in the newspaper article. Again, the people of San Francisco know this, why don't our citizens have a right to know? 3) Some have asked what the fact that Mr. Johnson has AIDS has to do with him being a city councilman. The fact is that if he opts to take advantage of the City's health insurance coverage for City Council members (which he has the option to do at any time, if elected), the cost of his treatment will be borne by the citizens of Portsmouth, no matter what personal resources Mr. Johnson has to pay on his own. Should this be an issue? Of course it should. Other council people in the past have had ailments that have caused great expense to the City, and of course the critics of the City blasted them for taking advantage of the citizenry. Why are they quiet now about Mr. Johnson? Agree or disagree, we believe and hope the Citizens of Portsmouth will benefit from the information on our website. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it.