The Ted Strickland BizzyBlog Dealbreakers

Follow-up Post:
- The Ted Strickland Dealbreakers — Briefly Stated
__________________________________

They’re not what you think.

As I write this, it appears that the flap over Ted Strickland’s residency, voter registration, and early voting (otherwise known as “no-excuse absentee balloting,” an act by a gubernatorial candidate that is probably unprecedented in Ohio history) may be over, or at least fought to a draw until Election Day, possibly even after that. Matt at Lincoln Logs has written a “for now” post-mortem. I have some reason to believe that rumors of the issue’s death are premature. We’ll just have to see.

But it doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter because there already are not just one, but two, BizzyBlog Dealbreakers with Ted Strickland. You just need to learn what they are.

A BizzyBlog Dealbreaker is defined as “something that completely justifies a person not voting for you, regardless of your party or your stands on the issues.”

Let me first make clear that while the following items that are troubling, and actually very troubling, they are, nevertheless, NOT the Dealbreakers:

• No, it’s not this — Though the infamous 1999 “Present” vote could arguably be a dealbreaker, it is issue- and vote-related, and if you happen to be with Ted Strickland in this matter, it doesn’t break the deal.

• Oh, and it’s not this either — Though the late-1990s hiring controversy gets awfully close, those who are either giving Strickland the benefit of the doubt on actually having documentation of his employee’s criminal record (a major stretch, given this), or who argue that an employer should somehow have given the person involved the benefit of the doubt anyway in the name of compassion (as, by the way, Ken Blackwell did with his “problem worker,” who instead of denying past offenses apparently gave some evidence, with outside corroboration, that he had been “turning his life around”), can say that it doesn’t break the deal.

• And no-no-no, it doesn’t directly relate to the immediate news about the “early vote” Ted Strickland cast last Friday, or even yesterday’s legal maneuvers. Perhaps surprsingly, neither Dealbreaker depends for its validity on the legal minutiae of election law or tax regulations. It’s also useful that the Dealbreakers don’t require any journeys into the so-called “gutter” everyone not interested in the truth about Ted Strickland in the previous two matters has been obsessing over.

No — The BizzyBlog Dealbreakers relate to something that’s even more important than the three items that don’t qualify (though the legal results of the voting and residency matters could turn into Dealbreaker 3 very quickly). The Dealbreakers don’t relate to where Ted Strickland is trying to claim he lives NOW; they relate to where he has lived during the past three-plus years, and what he did not tell voters about where he lived during nearly all of that time.

During the past few weeks, I have obtained plenty of anecdotal evidence from at least a dozen people in a position to know, both in and out of the 6th District, that the BizzyBlog Dealbreakers are valid. But I’m funny about evidence; I like to see documentation, and haven’t had the kind of published corroboration I need to gain comfort. Now I have that documentation, and I understand there may be more.

Here, from the East Liverpool Review’s endorsement of Ken Blackwell, is what sealed the Dealbreakers:

There is little evidence that Strickland, meanwhile, helped his own congressional district. It has one of the highest unemployment rates of any congressional district in the U.S.

It is clear that he announced his move to Lisbon only after the district was reshaped leaving Columbiana as the largest county. But it is clear to Lisbon residents that he spends little, if any, time there. His own income tax records indicate he resides in Columbus.

The Warren Tribune Chronicle, apparently owned by the same publisher as the East Liverpool paper (yes, I know, it’s located outside the district, but some of its readers live in it), had identical language in its endorsement.

This documented contention by people from the area is enough, with all of the other evidence, to seal the Dealbreakers. Why? Because it shows that Ted Strickland, the guy who completed an absentee ballot last Friday, has, for all practical purposes, been an absentee Congressman since shortly after he began “serving” the redrawn 6th District in January 2003.

Is all of this important? Well, of course. Let me remind you that I am not only not alone in considering the situations I will describe as Dealbreakers. Instead, I am part of a vast bipartisan and ideological majority that feels as I do:

Now, here is the series of points that leads to the Dealbreakers:

• Ted Strickland closed on the purchase of his condominium in Columbus on April 2, 2003, less than three months after his first term serving the redrawn 6th Congressional District began.
• As noted in the editorial above and corroborated extensively, Ted Strickland did not inform the people of the 6th District that he, in essence, moved out of the District to spend most of his non-DC time in Columbus, and, as such, became, in essence, an absentee congressman.
• Voters in the 6th district, and for that matter the rest of Ohio, were not informed that Ted Strickland had moved to Columbus in 2003 and had been spending most of his non-DC time there, until Strickland revealed the existence of the condo sometime after the 2006 Democratic primary. This July 27 Columbus Dispatch article may have been the first such revelation, though it is possible that Strickland’s living situation may have been revealed elsewhere several weeks prior to that. It may also be that Strickland was forced to make the revelation because it had been discovered by someone else, but I can’t verify that.
• This means that 6th District voters in general were not aware of Ted Strickland’s condo and rare district presence (again, people, it’s documented) when they voted in the 2004 Democratic Primary, or in the 2004 general election.
• It also means that Ohio’s 2006 Democratic voters in the May gubernatorial primary were not aware that the favored candidate had spent the previous 3-plus years living outside of his congressional district, and rarely visiting it.
• Ted Strickland has been paying Columbus income tax (Team Strickland has said as much).
• Ted Strickland has not been paying Lisbon Village income tax.

So here’s DEALBREAKER 1: Election Voter Deception — Ted Strickland profoundly deceived the 6th District in the 2004 primary and general elections, and also deceived Democratic primary voters in 2006 (as a bonus, it may be that he was deceiving voters in the 2002 congressional election by planning to live outside the district while running in it, but that can’t be proven).

His 6th District reelection in 2004, though unopposed, is nevertheless irretrievably tainted, simply because we will never know whether opposition would have materialized, had District residents known the truth. Heck, since 87% of Democrats believe that a congressman should be required to live in his or her district, it’s not unreasonable to believe that Ted Strickland, who was after all a first-termer in about 65% of the district, would have had Democratic primary opposition.

Ted Strickland’s May 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary “victory” is not merely tainted, it’s illegitimate (and thus, so is his November general-election candidacy). Statewide Democratic voters who pulled the lever for him on May 2 voted for the Ted Strickland assumed to be from Lisbon and who was assumed to live in his congressional district. (Note: The next sentence was added at 9PM) We know now that this person does not exist, and that Ted Strickland’s name should therefore not even have been on the ballot.

Regardless of the weak results posted by his challenger in the May 2 primary election, it is more than a little likely, given overwhelming voter sentiment against non-resident congressmen, that 30% of Democratic primary voters, had they known (and, of course, they deserved to), would have switched sides and selected Ted Strickland’s opponent. 65% of Democrats nationally say living outside your congressional district is a dealbreaker. Less than half would have had to express that belief at the ballot box for the election to have gone to Strickland’s opponent. I would argue that Ohio Democrats are more fastidious about these things than Democrats nationwide, and that someone running in hopes of a promotion would have been held more strictly to generally accepted standards of behavior.

Now here’s DEALBREAKER 2: Financially Shortchanging His District — What Ted Strickland has done during the past three years has robbed the 6th District of three years, and counting, of greatly needed tax revenues.

By choosing to live in Columbus and choosing to pay income taxes there, Ted Strickland has consciously chosen to shortchange the District he represents. By not owning a residence in the district and choosing to live in an owner-occupied residence in Columbus, he can also be seen as shortchanging the district’s schools and emergency services of needed property tax revenues in favor of a much larger area with a much larger tax base.

As noted yesterday, the 6th District needs jobs, and has needed jobs for years. Even Ted Strickland’s would-be successor in his own party says so. One job that could have come in handy all this time is Ted Strickland’s.

* * * * *

So here we have someone who would be governor of this great state who has failed for years to level with his constituents about his out-of-district residency, when any politician worth a plugged nickel instinctively knows how much it matters to the average voter, which the Survey USA poll confirms. Deal — BROKEN.

As a result, we also have a someone who is indifferent as to whether the people he “represents” benefit in any way from the fruits of his labors. Deal — BROKEN.

Discussion of “issues” — OVER.

Ted Strickland has broken the politician-constituent-voter contract, first with the people in his district, and now with the people of Ohio. All Ohio gubernatorial voters need to choose another candidate, or choose to abstain.

__________________________________

ADDENDUM 1: I am indeed relying on the contentions of those I have spoken with and the editorial above that the text contained in the editorial excerpt is true. I believe that reliance is well placed. Any attempt to refute Dealbreaker 1 in this post will require either a formal retraction from newspapers just noted, (PLUS any other newspaper that makes similar contentions between now and Election Day), or day-by-day documented proof. Don’t bother coming to me for any kind of retraction before then without one or the other. Also, memo to Team Strickland and the water-carriers in Ohio’s 527 Media: Spin without editorial retractions is not proof. Even a slew of people who “come forward” and say that “know” differently won’t suffice — even if you gin ‘em all up with affidavits. Get the retractions, or the day-by-day docs; otherwise, there is no call to bother me. ADDENDUM 1A: And guess what? Even if you get the retractions, Dealbreaker 2 still stands, and isn’t going anywhere.

ADDENDUM 2: Oh, and please don’t waste my time or anyone else’s talking about other congressmen or politicians in an attempt to make excuses for old Ted. What he has or hasn’t done stands or falls on its own merits and demerits.

ADDENDUM 3: Don’t waste your time with the “partisan shill” card. 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.

ADDENDUM 4: In case any newer readers think that this is simply a convenient issue over someone I don’t like for partisan reasons, I should note that I have opposed four previous candidacies on residency-related grounds (though none have had the long-term deception while serving involved in Ted Strickland’s case) –

• May-June 2005 (Ohio 2nd District Congressional Special GOP Primary) — Bob McEwen. Opposed on grounds that he had been absent from the District for 12 years, and bought his own residence in the District only about 2 months before Election Day.
• April-May 2006 (Ohio 2nd District GOP Primary Election) — Bob McEwen. Opposed because he, his wife, and his children (when they became eligible voters) had been discovered voting illegally in Highland County from roughly 1997-2002 while the family lived in Northern Virginia. Additionally, untruthful statements would have been necessary to be able to obtain absentee ballots under the restrictive conditions in place at the time.
• March-May 2006 (Ohio US Senate GOP Primary) — David Smith. Though his candidacy was legal and defensible with full disclosure, Mr. Smith had run for Congress three previous times in three different states in the space of three years, and consciously chose not to disclose that fact to voters who most assuredly would have been interested in knowing it. Only when it was occasionally dragged out of him would Mr. Smith acknowledge his previous runs and his Ohio residency of only about 18 months.
• November 2006 General Election — I am currently opposing the candidacies of Democrat Tammy Duckworth in Illinois’ 6th District, and of Democrat Charlie Wilson in Ohio’s 6th District (yup, Ted Strickland’s current district), because both candidates live outside of the districts they wish to represent and have stated that they have no plans to move in.