And you said he was nothing like Taft
I just wanted to point out that plenty of you out there gave me a ration of crap for indicating that Ted Strickland would be another Bob Taft.
Today’s revelation of Strickland’s decision to allow SB16 to become law without his signature is another indication that the guy has no backbone.
Sure you wanted to get rid of Taft, but all you got was another Taft.
Nicely done Ohio.
Hat tip to Jill who’s not sleeping well on the news that once in power Democrats are more like Republicans than she’d like to admit.
Now don’t go getting all excited. Dems, Republicans - I didn’t know the difference between sweet and sour until I was in my 20s. Honest. I just call ‘em like I see them and if they irritate me, they irritate me. I try to be party-blind. But the disappointment factor is probably what differs.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:12 pm
First, I’m a supporter of this legislation- But that has nothing to do with the fact I think this is well played by Strickland.
He mocks it as “silly”, doesn’t officially sign it, but still does what traditional Americans want him to do. He knows this issue would drag on forever in the form of a ballot issue- And it would pass. So he effectively took it off the table of public discussion. Someone in Strickland’s circle knew how to play this exactly right.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Right, b/c the alternative was so appealing. Nice pot shot.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Matt makes a good point that it was the smart thing to do politically on Strickland’s part, but…
Occasionally Redhorse we need to remind Democrats that you nominated Strickland
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:10 am
I think you’re making a really large leap to calling Strickland Taft b/c he didn’t squash one bill they way you wanted, that’s all.
And still, the alternatively was what??
May 23rd, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Don’t blame me, I voted for Bill Peirce!
May 24th, 2007 at 6:51 am