October 18, 2006

Strickland Referral Post

Filed under: News from Other Sites,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:19 pm

Thanks to Larwyn for e-mailing a heads-up about the Strickland situation far and wide.

Here’s where to start for the latest on the Strickland controversies:

1. The “Present” vote on the 1999 resolution (Roll call vote: 355 For, None Against, 13 Present) that condemned the American Psychological Association’s study of a research report claiming that pedophilia was sometimes a good thing — for the child:

Quick add: Here’s a link to the breathtaking one-minute floor speech where Strickland in essence called 355 of his colleagues a technically incompetent pack of liars (yes he did — read it).

As I have said before, here is the takeaway from this particular controversy:

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.


2. The non-background-checked hiring of a staffer in the late 1990s who had a criminal record as a convicted sex predator, was promoted to 1998 campaign manager, and who took a vacation to Italy with Strickland in 1999:


3. Questions about Strickland’s claim of residency for voting purposes in Lisbon, OH, when he owns a condo in Columbus and appears to spend much more of his non-DC time there:


Other SOB Alliance Members Contributing (home page links; scroll down for latest items relevant to these and other Strickland controversies; apologies if I’m missing anyone):

- Right Angle Blog
- Weapons of Mass Discussion
- Porkopolis
- Newshound
- Interested-Participant
- Blackwell vs. Strickland
- Keeler Report
- Brain Shavings


UPDATE: Brain Shavings has the YouTube video of Bill Cunningham’s appearance on Hannity & Colmes where he discussed Strickland controversies 1 and 2.

Alan Colmes repeated the Strickland line that he (Strickland) objected to the 1999 resolution because of “no opportunity for healing” language. For the umpteenth time, that’s total baloney; the objectionable language referred to text of a Supreme Court decision, and was NOT in what was “Resolved.” Read his objections in his one-minute speech on the floor of the House on July 27, 1999; you will not find any objection to the “no opportunity for healing” language there. If Strickland really felt that strongly about it, he would have squeezed it into his minute. He didn’t.

UPDATE 2, Oct. 19: Jerome Corsi writes in Thursday morning’s WorldNetDaily that Scott Pullins is planning to file an Ohio Elections Commission complaint:

Scott Pullins, a Mount Vernon, Ohio, attorney, plans to file an Ohio Elections Commission complaint against Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rep. Ted Strickland, charging that Strickland has attempted to cover up a scandal involving his 1998 campaign manager whose 1994 convictions for sexual improprieties with minors have remained hidden until recently.


1 Comment

  1. I was at a Blackwell event tonight in Independence, a Cleveland suburb. The crowd was energized and enthusatic. I thought I would pass that along.

    Comment by Ben Keeler — October 19, 2006 @ 1:10 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.