Deters alleged reporter/lover Coolidge puts hit out on Tracie Hunter

Time for the Enquirer to fold. Fold paper.  Someone reported to this blog a few years back that Sharon Coolidge and Joe Deters had a thing. We never reported it because it was irrelevant.   Now comes Coolidge's hit piece on Tracie Hunter.

Shame on you " nasty" Coolidge - lover of Deters.  Check 2009/2010 blog posts on the Deters/Coolidge connection.


Tracie Hunter believes in our children.

Tracie Hunter's amazing journey.  A look back.

FBK is a unapologetic black writer. 

What the community thinks of Enqui-liar

"This story demonstrates that the Enquirer is yet again misplacing editorial opinion on the front page. To add insult to injury, the "opinion" is little more than Republican Party propaganda packaged to infer wrongdoing by a candidate who apparently has done no wrong. The inference is that, because a candidate for a judgeship has herself been involved in litigation, somehow that candidate should therefore deemed unqualified for the judgeship. None of the litigation discussed, or more accurately not discussed, raises any question that even remotely would disqualify this candidate. She has had issues pertaining to real estate investments. So what? She had some financial issues, yet avoided foreclosure. So what? Twice she was injured when in a car that was hit by another driver. So what? If the true outcome of any of the lawsuits truly impugned the candidate, it was not discussed in this article. This is simply the front page of the Enquirer being co-opted by the local Republican Party."

"Your own guidelines for comments are to not attack personally - this is exactly what this story does. What difference does this make at all? If any of this was frivilous, charges would have been made and your editors and the Bar Association knows that. This was a vicious attack made by the Enquirer typical by this conservative staff. While I'm not a big fan of Hunter's, I find this story to be lower than your newspaper's normal low standards."

So glad I voted for Tracie.


"Wow now that computers are used .... you can't claim that the dirt on our hands is just ink. Must have done a lot of digging only to come up with; Tracie Hunter loves God & what's is in the public record of a lot of Hamilton county officials. What's in yours that the public needs to read about? Did you stayed up all night to write this? It had to be hard to sleep after accepting silver for this story. @ "It is just amazing"...This story is going to be responsible for people getting cuts from all that broken glass. Also it's a shame this story has to appear with a story mentioning "forgiveness". Too bad, so sad."

I'm as conservative as they come (lower case 'c'), but I have to admit that while reading the first few paragraphs my first reaction was that it was a hit piece. Alex T found the numerated revelations to be 'disturbing'? What revelations were those and why? If the Enquirer told him about the discrepancies in her claimed employment history, then that's a fair 'disturbing', but those things were not mentioned until paragraphs following the quote of Alex T's reaction.







I've sued or been sued probably 5 dozen times. That doesn't make me unsavory. It makes me a businessman, but by Enquirer standards it presumably disqualifies me to be a judge. What a sensational and tilted headline, "Tracie Hunter has sued or been sued 13 times." Trying to imply something there Enquirer? National Enquirer standards is my take on it.






"When the article later noted that nothing was found about Williams other than a disorderly conduct, followed by the exculpatory "when he was 21", the case against the Enquirer was nailed shut for me. You could almost read the parenthetical 'but kids will be kids, so a disorderly conduct is ok with us'. How about some details about that crime, and then letting the reader decide if 'kids will be kids'?


"She is legally qualified to be a judge in Ohio: she's under 70, a registered voter, and has been a lawyer for six years.


Really? Sounds as if the Enquirer is implying that, beyond those criteria, she has no other qualifications. Why not mention the same thing about her opponent?


"Hunter refused to be interviewed for this story." Considering that the Enquirer has editorial privilege and the final say on quotes and inserting quotes out of context....I DON'T BLAME HER."




.