October 13, 2006

Why Ted Strickland’s 1999 ‘Present’ Vote on H CON RES 107 Matters, and What It Means — INDEX, Disclosure, and Overview

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 12:25 pm

OCTOBER 13 NOTE: This post has been carried forward to today (Friday) because of continued interest in the topic. This supplemental post that went up this morning is also important, because it makes this fundamental point at the end about Strickland’s 1999 “Present” vote that wasn’t made crystal clear on Tuesday:

Nobody can fairly say that Ted Strickland supports pedophilia, but no one can deny that Ted Strickland’s 1999 “Present” vote on H CON RES 107, and especially his subsequent reaction to Congress’s unanimous support of it, provided aid and comfort to those who do. The only debate is over how much.


NOTE: These posts cover Ted Strickland’s 1999 “Present” vote on a House Resolution that condemned a research study published (and later withdrawn) by the American Psychological Association that was widely seen as an attempt to set the stage for eventual normalization of what the study wanted to call “adult-child sex,” but which the civilized world still refers to as “pedophilia.”

INDEX to supporting October 10 posts:
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

DISCLOSURE (and note to anyone tempted to ignorantly apply the “Blackwell/GOP shill” label to the author, or to these posts):

Yes, I said with some reluctance that I would vote for Ken Blackwell after the May primary, and here is the full context –

(I have learned) that the “Christian Right” can be taken in by clever messengers who say the right things and are successful at not revealing their true selves. Yes, that goes for David Smith and Bob McEwen. Yes, that makes me hesitant to jump up and down for joy about Ken Blackwell, because I believe his close alignment with the Ohio Restoration Project is causing an ugly strain of condescension and a bit of a detachment from reality to emerge in him, and I never thought I’d say either thing (though I will vote for him, given the alternative).

I would suggest that this hardly qualifies as cheerleading. But I’ll always take someone who occasionally detours in the directions of condescension and detachment over someone like Ted Strickland who, as you will see in this series of posts, despite normally disguising them, has shown that both are integral parts of his personality, along with an opposite-end-of-the-spectrum strain of self-righteousness that would even embarrass any supposedly “judgmental” Christian-right evangelist.

The preference just described definitely includes my vote this coming Election Day.

I’ve already received criticism for engaging in slander and the like in these posts. Please — What that criticism really shows is that these posts are indeed on target, accurate, and worthy of serious consideration by Ohio voters. It also demonstrate a convenient memory loss as to which party the gubernatorial candidate who raised the issue earlier this year happens to be a member of.



Part 1Why It’s Being Brought Up

Ted Strickland’s 1999 “Present” vote on H CON RES 107, his reaction to the Resolution in question, and his stated reason for opposing it are relevant to the 2006 Ohio gubernatorial campaign because:

  • There’s a big difference between serving 600,000 people in Congress and governing an entire state of 11 million people.
  • The Strickland campaign has been widely agreed to be painfully short on specifics, so we must look elsewhere for clues as to what kind of governor he might be.
  • The conduct of Strickland’s party in Washington during the past two weeks has made it clear that the seven year-old Strickland controversy needs to be fully vetted.

Part 2The Resolution, and Strickland’s Floor Speech

H CON RES 107 was an outraged response by Congress to an attempt by a professional publication to quietly begin the process of normalizing what the authors of a research study in that publication wished to call “adult-child sex,” but which the rest of the civilized world refers to as “pedophilia.”

The resolution passed 355-0; Ted Strickland was one of 13 who voted “Present.”

15 days later after the Resoluion passed unanimously, Strickland made a blistering one-minute speech on the House Floor that was so critical of his colleagues that it must be read to be believed. (ADDED at 5PM — For the benefit of those who don’t want to slog through all the detail, Strickland in essence called 355 of his colleagues a technically unqualified pack of liars who had no right to criticize his professional colleagues in the psych business. Read the one-minute speech [saved at blog host] yourself).

Part 3The Reason Why He Said He Opposed It (and My Conversation with Him about It)

As intensely critical as that one-minute speech was, it did not contain what Ted Strickland claimed to be his primary objection to H CON RES 107, namely that he would support any resolution claiming that anyone who has had a childhood sexual relationship with an adult can never have a healthy and loving sexual relationship in later life, or that healing and recovery from being sexually abused as a child are not possible.

The fact is, as is clear from reading the Resolution, and as I told Strickland myself when I spoke to him in 2001, that what Congress “Resolved” in H CON RES 107 did not make either statement; the full language in the Resolution made one “whereas” reference to a 1982 Supreme Court decision that did. Ted Strickland’s “big objection” to the Resolution, was, and still is, specious.

Part 4What His Vote, and His Conduct Surrounding That Vote, Reveal about How He Might Govern

Ted Strickland’s 1999 vote, his reaction to the Resolution in question, and his stated reason for opposing it have potentially profound implications relating to how Ohio might be governed should he reach the Statehouse. Causes for concern include:

  • His intense belief in being non-judgmental.
  • His stated willingness to hire ex-convicts for state jobs.
  • His track record of having an employee with a known criminal record who he kept on his payroll and used as his campaign manager.
  • The unique ability a sitting governor has to grant pardons and commutations.
  • Ohio’s experience almost 16 years ago with how another notoriously non-judgmental governor used his pardon and commutation powers.


  1. Ted Strickland is soft on pedophiles…

    BizzyBlog’s Tom Blumer has written a must-read four part series on Ted Strickland’s refusal to condemn pedophilia … and why it matters…….

    Trackback by Brain Shavings — October 10, 2006 @ 12:34 pm

  2. [...] Well, actually I don’t know if Strickland would like it or not. Because after his rant in 1999 (see Bizzyblog) he clammed up and won’t say whether he still stands by that vote. [...]

    Pingback by NixGuy.com » Foley and Strickland Would Like This Research… — October 10, 2006 @ 8:52 pm

  3. Electing a prison psychologist to fix fiscal and economic problems is like calling a plumber to come and work on your car. LG

    Comment by Larry Gibson — October 10, 2006 @ 9:34 pm

  4. ‘Foley Problem’ surfaces for Ohio Democrats…

    What do you imagine could have caused this problem? Is the liberal double standard coming home to roost on their doorstep?
    ‘Foley problem’ surfaces for Ohio DemocratsScandal puts spotlight on gubernatorial candidate’s vote on pedophilia
    Posted: O…

    Trackback by Tweeter — October 11, 2006 @ 8:04 pm

  5. [...] WOW — an excellent Energizer bunny roundup (keeps going and going …..). Go there for the latest on media and other coverage of what WoMD started and this blog analyzed in detail. [...]

    Pingback by Bizzyblog » NixGuy Is All Over the Coverage of Last Night’s Debate, and THE TOPIC — October 17, 2006 @ 11:34 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.