October 10, 2006

Ted Strickland’s 1999 ‘Present’ Vote on H CON RES 107 — Part 4: What It Reveals about How He Might Govern

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:06 am

Other posts in the series:
Index — What It Means, Why It Matters, and Overview
Part 1 — Why It’s Being Brought Up
Part 2 — The Resolution, and Strickland’s Floor Speech
Part 3 — The Reason Why He Said He Opposed It (and My Conversation with Him about It)
_______________________________________

Part 4: What It Reveals about How He Might Govern

So how IS that 1999 “Present” vote on H CON RES 107, his reaction to the Resolution and his congressional colleagues who supported it, and his stated reason for opposing it, relevant to how he might govern Ohio?

The best way to get your arms around this is to ask yourself the following series of questions:

  1. Haven’t we had quite enough of non-judgmental “leadership” in the Statehouse during the past eight years? (Look, I don’t care what party the current governor is from. He should have resigned, and I’ve said so, and said so, and said so, and said so. The case that he should have gone away has done nothing but grow stronger with every new galling, painful revelation.) If Ted Strickland can’t bring himself to even criticize people who are so clearly in the wrong, while unloading with both barrels on those who are so clearly in the right and dare to say so, what confidence can we have that he will impose and enforce standards of conduct on his staff, or on state employees in general, that are any more meaningful than what we’ve seen from the current admnistration?
  2. Oh, and did you forget this (“U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland told a closed-door Toledo audience over the weekend that he would hire ex-convicts for state government jobs if Ohioans elect him governor in the fall.”)? Doesn’t there seem to be cause for more than a little bit of concern about what types of ex-cons might, thanks to non-judgmental Ted, become newly qualified to work for the state, and what areas of state government they might be able to work in?
  3. Gosh, I almost forgot about the other matter Bryan Flannery brought up in March — Is the situation with the “friend and protege” described at this link indicative of the level of screening Strickland will apply to staff members and state employees? What types of people can the state’s taxpayers expect to be, ahem, exposed to?
  4. Do we really want to give the gubernatorial pardon and commutation powers to someone who couldn’t even bring himself to condemn those who put together a study whose longer-term objective was clearly to normalize pedophilia? What other crimes might Ted Strickland be willing to forgive? What kind of people might he be willing to set loose on Ohio’s streets?
  5. Does anyone who was in Ohio in 1991 not remember the outrageous last-minute pardons and commutations granted by outgoing Governor Dick Celeste to hardened criminals like Debra Brown? Could Ohio be voting into the Governor’s office someone who might, in his final days in power while in essence accountable to absolutely no one, unloose a torrent of pardons and commutations that would actually make us forget Celeste?

So it turns out that a detailed look at that 1999 “Present” vote, and at the totality of all the circumstances surrounding it, raises red flags galore over how a possible governor Strickland might manage this state. The words of an unsuccessful candidate for a different office come to mind when imagining Ted Strickland as governor: “Risky Scheme.”

Regardless of who his opponents are, I have a hard time seeing how anyone can get past the questions raised here and still vote for Ted Strickland on November 7.

Share

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.