Print This Post
Mar
21
You can listen to the podcasts here or read the transcript here.
I arrived uncharacteristically early (which is to say, on-time) for the first-ever Meet the Bloggers debate, held Sunday, 3/19/06, at 4pm in Talkies Coffee. In the hot seats would be U.S. House Rep. Ted Strickland (OH-6) and Bryan Flannery. (Both nice websites, btw.)
Eventually, eighteen folks settled into the dimly-lit, devoid of natural light film screening room. The Usual Suspects in attendance included George Nemeth, Tim Russo, Gloria and Tim Ferris, Daniella Lundquist, Scott and Michelle Bakalar (Scott had a wonderful story about another candidate which he has since blogged about here) and Jim Eastman. Karen Kilroy and Anthony Fossaceca, formally with the (now ended) Eric Fingerhut gubernatorial campaign and now with Flannery, also attended. Several observers took pictures and stayed for the entire 90-plus minutes of the nonstop wonkfest.
A pleasant surprise came in the form of Matt Naugle (I hope it’s okay to out you, Matt-I don’t want you to lose a job or anything for checking out MTB, but I’m guessing it’s just researching oppo, right?) who, in a very encouraging show of support for MTB’s effort, said hello afterwards. Apparently, he’d been in attendance for much of the debate.
The dark room offered a strange contrast to the otherwise sun-splashed though cold Cleveland mid-winter Sunday. Music from the coffee shop wafted into the space past the fabric curtains that separated our group from other patrons and the baristas.
Bryan Flannery strode in first, although, sometime before that, I recall Strickland’s advance-men lugging in at least one box weighted with pocket folder handouts. (I’ve yet to look through all the materials, but a bumper sticker, a business card and some other brochures await me.) I didn’t have a chance to meet Flannery at this point because I needed to round up my coffee.
When Strickland entered and we shook hands, I could have sworn I heard a rather pronouned Southern-type accent. Yet during the debate, I heard almost no accent. I know my dad’s New York accent only kicks in at certain times, as does my Boston-born husband’s, but usually neither is prominent. It wouldn’t surprise me if Strickland’s appears and disappears similarly. (Again, listen for yourself on the podcast.)
Strickland’s attire matched the informal weekend feel of the event: light tan slacks, well-worn black laced dress shoes and a St. Patrick’s Day green V-neck sweater over a seemingly white button-down collar shirt (I say seemingly because the lighting cast hues on such details). His posture, during the debate, matched this relaxed dress code: he leaned back, used hand gestures, raised and lowered his voice, and made eye contact in engaging ways but not in any way that made me feel overwhelmed or jumped on. If he was feeling stress or nerves, he didn’t show it. But with each response, and, ironically, building incrementally as the debate neared its end, Strickland’s desire to convey his hopes and plans for Ohio became more apparent and more forceful. (I’ve written this in two parts, one on Sunday, and completed it today; since I wrote this portion, this, this, this and this have been written about the event and provide similar impressions about Strickland’s performance.)
Bryan Flannery presented an excellent study in the opposite. Suit, tie, similar shoes – church-going or interview outfit, I thought. And an Ohio pin on his lapel (I wasn’t close enough to see precisely what the white metallic accessory represented). But in addition to the differences in clothing, Flannery’s physical stance struck me too. He sat on the edge of his seat, raring to go. Not so much nervous as very, very eager. From about midway in my notes: “Flannery sitting back now, but he is a big guy.” And indeed, I learned from his website, he is a big guy. He played football for the University of Notre Dame, including one season when they were national champs. At one point, I almost felt badly – because he almost seemed too large for the chair -not quite Edith Ann in reverse, but something like that.
With basically no introductions (and, of course, no setting rules, that would not be MTB-like), George Nemeth lobbed the first question, which was about broadband, and then Gloria Ferris asked about utilities-related issues.
During this time, I listened and observed. Candidates must learn how to address constituents in every setting imaginable, but do you think that talking over latte machines and vintage Mick Jagger is a scenario Toastmaster’s anticipates?
George and Tim began nodding and jutting their chins towards me to see if I had a question. Well, actually, I suspect they weren’t looking to see if I had a question. They knew I must. They wanted to know if I was ready to go next. And next I went.
Education. Not the only issue I follow, but near and dear to me for sure.
How will you, as Governor, achieve school funding changes and education reform in general (not my exact words, but more or less the idea) when you’re faced with a Republican-controlled legislature?
They had to know this was coming, right? Yet neither candidate seemed to relish answering this particular aspect of Ohio’s education conundrum. Here’s a paraphrase from my notes (which are just that – notes):
Strickland: Go to the legislature and find a compromise. If that doesn’t work, put something on a referendum to achieve equality in funding.
Flannery: To say I’ll be a law abiding governor doesn’t cut it (Strickland began his answer with a reference to being a law-abiding governor; the general opinion of Democrats being that the Republicans aren’t law-abiding given their dereliction of the duty DeRolph imposed on them – the legislature in particular – to fix Ohio’s educational funding formula). Republicans haven’t done anything because they don’t have a plan. Flannery believes that he has a plan that can effectuate what DeRolph said needs to happen.
Note: Flannery mentioned “plan” often enough to evoke my memory of Al Gore and his constant references to keeping social security funds in a lockbox (okay, that’s not being honest; the memory evoked was of the Saturday Night Live skit that made fun of Al Gore constantly referring to a lockbox).
Strickland: We need to pull in constituencies. There has to be some kind of consensus – a monumental effort to get the initiative on the ballot.
Flannery: Trying to please everybody all the time is not leadership.
Well, first of all, Strickland gets points because he answered the question, albeit he needed to go back to it once or twice because, knowing that there will be a Republican-led legislature means that there will be obstacles for a Democratic governor trying to get changes in education and you can’t just end with “We’ll work toward consensus.”
Flannery took this opportunity to highlight his long-fought for plan about education: get experts to cost out the price of the education Ohio’s public school kids need and should have, and have the legislature appropriate that amount. End of discussion.
I didn’t want to take the debate time for Flannery to spell out his plan (hence some folks might feel a little in the clouds about what he was discussing). Why not? Well – it was just my way of framing the question: Democrats in general agree that we need education reform. They each have plans that are being rolled out. And while the plan is important, it’s getting it past a Republican legislature that is the challenge. Plans can be gosh darn jaw-dropping fabulous, but if you can’t get action on it, who cares?
That’s why I asked what I asked.
And I had to re-ask the question of Flannery in particular, which is what led him to comment about leadership not being about consensus building.
I’m no ringer, but I have been in a somewhat formal leadership training fellowship program for nearly two years now and I can tell you that consensus building is in fact a big piece of leadership. To think that you can bully something through is not only bullying, but it increases the chance that what you’ve gotten enacted won’t be applied. I would agree with Flannery that a leader cannot pander to every niche and interest. But especially when you’re talking about a multi-faceted issue like education, well, top-down pushing without stakeholder buy-in doesn’t seem likely to go any further than the GOP’s inaction.
IMHO.
Tim Ferris then asked about jobs and Tim Russo followed up with a question about taxes. At this point, in my notes, I wrote: “Strickland is very impressive – very well-spoken-easy words – good speaker – using body – leaning forward, eye contact – sitting back – minister – ministerial Flannery – just very defensive – “Mr Strickland here…” I noted that because in the very beginning, Flannery called him, “Ted.”
Then an MTB website question came in about cheeseburgers in paradise. Well, not exactly. The question was about holding gun companies liable for what gun owners do and holding fast food dynasties liable for obesity. Some comic relief ensued but in general the two candidates had the same opinion: no liability for either group of entities.
Daniella asked a fascinating question about why is that in Minnesota people pay high taxes and get great education and don’t complain. Yet here in Ohio we’re taxed to the hilt and what do we get? (paraphrasing)
Now, Strickland’s response here led me to discuss with him afterwards the idea that education cannot be divorced from economic benefit. Clearly, he wanted to underscore the need for education in the pursuit of economic benefits, as a general proposition that most of us can support.
However, what I thought of immediately, and discussed with him later, was that I believe education is an end in itself. We don’t support education simply because it leads to economic benefits. Of course we want those two to connect. But education serves many other purposes since not everyone goes into the for-profit sector. We also don’t want people to be unemployable so that has an effect on the economy.
But education, as a pursuit? It’s more than just for economic benefits. We VALUE education and being educated and learning. And not just because of what it does to the bottom line.
Just before Scott Bakalar ran the men through eminent domain, abortion and the Patriot Act, Flannery said that Strickland’s ideas were old and Bob Taft-style ideas. I thought that was pure posturing and the fact that Flannery seemed to posture fairly often during the debate put me off. Not that perhaps Strickland’s own presentation didn’t involve posturing, but, as you can probably gather from listening, it just wasn’t the same.
After Scott, Tim Ferris asked about the agriculture industry and George asked about energy development. Along similar lines, Jim Eastman asked about alternative fuels.
Toward the end, I asked about public financing/spending caps/campaign finance reform, approaches to curb fraud and corruption in the government and, last but apparently far from least, casinos. See here, here and here for more on that issue.
Me? I thought I was asking a legitimate question about an issue that divides Ohioans and about which I have disagreed with many candidates (I’m against casinos, don’t support them, wouldn’t advocate for them – does that cover the gamut of that side?).
Strickland: won’t advocate for casinos, but if the people of Ohio end up wanting them, he won’t veto it/probably couldn’t veto it if a ballot issue;
Flannery: as Karen Kilroy notes here, he said that there is a good kind of gambling and a bad kind of gambling. If you listen to the podcast, you can hear just how befuddling I found that answer but we didn’t take the time to explore this, to me, bizarre distinction. Suffice it to say that as someone with a legal and mental health background, that is a distinction that I would love to see someone study.
In sum, the debate was lengthy, substantive, on the record and thoroughly helpful in getting to know these candidates. I didn’t speak with Flannery afterwards – he was gone before I had a chance to circulate. I was chatting more with George trying to figure out how to keep my blog from getting hacked again and maybe moving it, somehow, somewhere, some day. And then Matt the aforementioned GOP blogger introduced himself, then I went to get some water and then, on the way drifting out, Ted Strickland specifically put his hand out to shake mine and said, “And you are…?” in a way that said, “I don’t actually know you, but given the questions and the grilling you were giving us, I’m thinking that maybe I should have known who you are, or I should know who you are, or at the very least, I’d like to know who you are and how it is that you knew to ask the questions you did.”
Having read all of that into his simple, “And you are…?,” I proceeded to tell him who I was. And then we had a lovely discussion about education as an end in itself, my law and social work background, having worked with Lee Fisher’s wife’s brother’s wife and working at Bellefaire for years and negotiating contracts for mental health agencies with CCDCFS.
The last thing I mentioned to him was my disappointment at how no candidate yet had openly discussed how just because all the neighboring states have legalized gambling, that doesn’t mean we have to also, and that I hate how the economic reciprocity thing keeps being raised. What a sham and a con on our intellect and our souls.
And then, the lights went out at Talkies and I went to pow-wow with other debate attendees in an upper, uber secret room at Great Lakes Brewing Company.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 6:43 pm March 21st, 2006 in Politics
Comments
18 Responses to “Meet the Bloggers Gubernatorial Debate: The Democrats”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
Okay…I am a smart ass but after reading this:
I went to pow-wow with other debate attendees in an upper, uber secret room at Great Lakes Brewing Company.
Was this off the record?
Nah, I’m just a smart ass too.
There are times I wish I would have moved to Avon Lake when my father was still alive. He wanted us to move out there but my older two were in high school then.
Thanks for the very informative wrap-up, Jill.
Nope- No worries. I have followed the Cleveland blogs for awhile, and I was simply curious to see how a MTB was run. I wasn’t there to cause problems, and I liked how lefty Cleveland bloggers seem to make every attempt to be fair. Thanks for not kicking the Republican out! haha
-posted by Matt N.
Thanks again, Matt. I know Tim, George and Bill have wanted to get some right of center bloggers who like the premise to participate too but I don’t think any significant inroads have been made on that front yet.
Jill,
You crack me up, you wrote down everything, how do you do it? It is an excellent description of the debate but you alos manage to capture al the hues and textures of the day, a great post!
Thanks, Daniella.
You know how much I admire your writing, so your compliment means a lot to me. Like I responded to Wendy, and I can see from others’ posts, I still don’t get it all in, there’s just too much. But you have to edit yourself somewhere, mais non?
For the record, the Republican legislature is not monolithic in its defiance of the DeRolph rulings. I had the opportunity to meet the GOP legislators and many GOP candidates during both 2002 and 2004 when I, myself, was a GOP candidate for the state legislature. There is a geographical dimension and there is a campaign funding dimension to the prevailing GOP opinion on school funding. The exurbs of southwest Ohio have public schools that are among the “haves” rather than the “have-nots.” The state legislators from this region rake in the most campaign contributions for the GOP–not just their own campaigns, but for the Ohio House Republican Campaign Committee, the Ohio GOP, and other GOP campaign treasuries as well. This fundraising ability is very influential in determining the GOP leadership in the Ohio House. This dynamic led to the emergence of Speaker of the House Husted from suburban Dayton. There are those in the GOP who have very different views of public education. The farther away a GOP candidate is from Southwest Ohio, and the less money the GOP candidate has, the more likely there is to be a variance from the prevailing opinion. The variant views do not prevail because they more likely spring from “grassroots” candidacies with less fundraising clout, so they do not have as high a success rate in the elections. (In the primary elections, the more well-funded candidate will be the more familiar name among the voters, regardless of the merits of that candidate’s platform vis-a-vis the merits of the platform of the lesser funded opponents.) Nevertheless, the prevailing opinion is not the opinion of all. A smart candidate who wants legislative action on an issue will not paint the legislature with a broad brush, but, instead, seek out the divisions between the factions, and cobble together enough votes among those factions (using both sides of the aisle) to gain traction. Pigeon-holing all GOP legislators as belonging to the same mindset will only doom moderate Dems, because they stand to lose every vote that trends along party lines. Working to erase party line votes by reaching across the aisle and finding a few core principles to agree upon with a faction of the opposing party is the best way for moderate voices to be heard.
By the way, while you praise Strickland for a proper attitude toward consensus-building, Strickland also needs to convey a hint of where the consensus will be found. To not do so could lead one to believe that Strickland is clueless and doesn’t know where to lead us to. Flannery may have talked about “leadership” in that context to contrast with a perception that Strickland is “adrift” and can thus be tossed like the waves of the sea and driven with the wind.
As for the issue of gambling, I am very much against gambling. I am alarmed that the expansion of gambling is greatly favored by our legislators from both sides of the aisle. Because our past two governors threatened a veto on casinos, the legislature didn’t spring into action. The only gubernatorial candidates that have weighed in against casinos have been the Republican candidates for governor. (Petro, Blackwell, and before she dropped out, Montgomery, have all made powerful statements against gambling.) In other words, you are not likely to find all the ingredients you are looking for packaged into just one gubernatorial candidacy.
Mr. Williamson – Thank you for taking the time to read and comment.
Just so I’m clear, how would you phrase the prevailing GOP legislative position on school funding, the position from which you say some legislators vary? I’m assuming that it is to do nothing, that the situation is improving and charters and vouchers are the answer. But, I admit, this is only an assumption. I’m not very familiar with individual legislator positions, with perhaps the exception of Marc Dann and Chris Redfern, and that’s only because of my recent interaction with and self-education about them.
By excluding Strickland as someone who is “out” against casinos by saying that he won’t advocate for them, are you suggesting that he secretly wants them or is willing to let others do the dirty work to get them here? I don’t read what he’s said thus far about casinos that way, but I know others have that read on him. Other than being a Democrat, is there any evidence that he does in fact support casinos, secretly or not so secretly? I’ve not seen that but there’s a lot I don’t know.
Agreed – it’s very unlikely, and it seems to be happening more and more, that we are unlikely to find all the ingredients we want in one package, without the ones we don’t want. Tough times and choices indeed.
Thanks again.
The prevailing opinion is that the Ohio Supreme Court had no business making the ruling on DeRolph. “Legislating from the bench” is the catch-phrase that sums up the prevailing view on that topic (in violation of the separation of powers among the three branches of government). The prevailing opinion is that property taxes, while perhaps being too expensive, are legitimate. The Northwest Ordinance that formed the first code of law for the Northwest Territories (from which the Ohio Territory was carved before statehood) clearly established the precedent that land was to be the support for the educational system. When surveyors laid out every township (measuring 36 square miles), section 16 (measuring one square mile) was reserved for the public school. If the entire square mile was not needed for the schools, then the township could sell land from that section, the proceeds of which would support the schools. This is the precursor of property taxes as the basis of education funding. Conservatives prefer that taxes be kept at the local level where government can be kept smaller and more closely watched rather than forwarding taxes to the state or national government, swelling bureaucracies that are farther removed from the vigilance of the voters. The prevailing opinion is that the educational system is not inherently broken merely because one district’s tax base differs from another. Success or failure of the schools to reach educational objectives are not determined predominantly by $$$, but are more likely determined by the expectations, support, and involvement of parents. While discrepancies can and do arise from one school district to another, conservatives decry socialistic (redistribution of wealth) remedies in order to achieve conformity (which would amount to universal mediocrity, in their eyes). The conservative opinion is that the schools do not necessarily provide a better education by throwing more money in their direction. As an example, Blackwell’s campaign wants to set a benchmark wherein 65% of education expenditures are spent directly on classroom instruction. This builds on a widely-held view in conservative circles that far too much of the education money is spent on administrative costs, or on peripheral programs (beyond the classroom) that exist for purposes of social engineering rather than for purposes of classroom instruction, and that increases in school revenues are more likely to beef up the administration and the peripheral programs than they are to beef up the classroom instruction.
The legislature’s response to the allegations of unsafe and outmoded school buildings in poor school districts was to launch a massive school construction project across Ohio. The income tax rollbacks disappeared, the rainy day fund disappeared, the tobacco lawsuit settlement money was diverted, and a large portion of our state budget is now allocated to the repayment of bonds. For conservatives, this was a massive money grab by the state, pure and simple, under the guise of “education.” Now that the legislature has done all this, plus established a dollar amount for what it believes to be adequate to educate a student, yes, the prevailing opinion on the General Assembly is “do nothing, that the situation is improving and charters and vouchers are the answer.”
It’s that last part that I have the hardest time with. Their rationale is that the public schools will perform better with competition. They got it backwards: public schools ARE the competition. Before there were public schools, there was only private education. In Europe, before the foundations of our own nation, if children weren’t raised to do the same work their parents did, they had to have some means to do otherwise. They could apprentice their child to someone else, seek a commission with the military, study at a convent or monastery to become part of the clergy, or go to a boarding school or university. All of those options had a price tag affixed. Seeking to break from aristocratic institutions, our new nation encouraged the formation of public schools to compete with the private ones and lead to a more egalitarian status among our citizens. To look to vouchers and charter schools as a way to improve public schools, to me, is a way to dodge responsibility. We should be getting our hands dirty fixing the public schools instead of circumventing them, but I guess circumventing them is the easy, convenient “solution.”
The competition rationale further lacks credibility when drawing a parallel to the business world. Let’s liken the state government to a fast-food restaurant corporation, and liken the school districts as franchised operations of the corporation. If McDonalds thinks a franchisee is not performing well, do they say “Let’s improve our franchisee’s performance by creating more competition?” Would the McDonalds corporation hand out coupons (vouchers) to customers for purchases at Wendys in order to increase competition? Would McDonalds send funds to help operate Burger Kings (charter schools) to increase competition? No way! They would probably hold seminars for the franchisees, provide them with more tools, more training, based on needs revealed by bookkeeping, auditing and mystery shopping so that they could boost the performance of their franchisees. “Grassroots” GOP voters may recognize that vouchers and charter schools merely amount to corporate welfare for entrepreneurs like David Brennan of White Hat Management (quid pro quo). For the fiscally conservative, how do the voucher and charter school programs save the taxpayers money compared to just providing money to public schools only?
Also, there are those in the GOP who have variant opinions on the wisdom of property taxes. There are GOP candidates out there who believe that the current property tax regime may have an adverse affect on business location decisions and an adverse affect on outward migration of our most well-to-do retirees, so re-examining our current state and local taxation structures ought to be an option laid out on the table.
As for Strickland and gambling, he has left the door open for pro-gambling PAC’s to donate to his campaign (I haven’t looked at any campaign finance reports yet to find out if this has indeed happened), and I certainly get the sense that he will let others do the dirty work to expand gambling here. He’s sending a signal that he can be “bought.” He is, after all, a Congressman, isn’t he?
Again, I appreciate the time you’ve taken, again. I’m tired out from writing up the Petro MTB but let me say first that I’m sure after reading your comment that I’m not a Republican since, for one, I am sure that the prevailing opinion you describe is the one of the GOP state legislators, correct?
Also, just so you know that I like debate, as sport, here goes:
When you write, “As an example, Blackwell’s campaign wants to set a benchmark wherein 65% of education expenditures are spent directly on classroom instruction. This builds on a widely-held view in conservative circles that far too much of the education money is spent on administrative costs, or on peripheral programs (beyond the classroom) that exist for purposes of social engineering rather than for purposes of classroom instruction, and that increases in school revenues are more likely to beef up the administration and the peripheral programs than they are to beef up the classroom instruction,” well – I’ve researched this approach to school budgeting and find it to be fallatious, hard-hearted and short-sighted at best, given that that 65% doesn’t even allow for librarians (did you know that?) among other groups.
Also, you say, regarding Strickland and casinos, “I certainly get the sense that he will let others do the dirty work to expand gambling here. He’s sending a signal that he can be “bought.” He is, after all, a Congressman, isn’t he?” correct if I’m wrong, but you’ve run a couple of times to be state legislator. Does that mean that you can be bought as well? Or…what exactly do you mean, as applied to your aspirations, or former aspirations? (Since I definitely am not sure what you do now)
Thanks again for reading and commenting. I look forward to your responses.
When a candidate makes a clear and definitive statement on an issue, then a candidate is clearly sending a message that they cannot be bought at an auction to the highest bidder. When a candidate makes a public statement on an issue that is totally ambiguous, that’s sending a message of “Go ahead and influence me! Make your checks out to . . .”
As a candidate, I received no campaign contributions from PAC’s, though some PAC’s did choose to endorse me based upon my clearly definitive statements about my platform.
Those candidates willing to “waffle” (especially running in a swing district, and the state of Ohio is one giant swing district) can really absorb a lot of campaign contributions from competing special interest PAC’s.
My wisecrack about our members of Congress reflect the increasing number of media revelations concerning corruption in Washington DC. I admit that my wisecrack is not based upon any personal knowledge of any scandalous relationship between Strickland and any other entity. I apologize for my levity concerning such a grave matter, especially in the absence of substantiating evidence.
As for Blackwell’s 65% benchmark, is Blackwell scheduled to “Meet the Bloggers?” That might be a good line of questioning.
Fair enough on both counts. My only retort this go-round would be that for sure there are candidates who win gobs of $$ by being hardlined in certain directions too, since some PACs won’t give unless you’re clearly in their corner, not just a possible vote for their cause, no? I’m thinking particularly of more extreme right-wing causes, though I’m certain there are some on the left that dole out their $$ in the same way: to sure bets, not just to influence wafflers.
And, finally, you know, and I bet you do, that some of us – and I include myself in this batch, really do, actually feel the way Strickland describes how he says he feels about the casinos. That is, if the residents of Ohio want them, and I don’t, I may fight to not have them, but I don’t know that I’m moving out tomorrow because of it. I would never say that I won’t live in CT because they have casinos (I’ve even been to one and one of my best friends is married to a Mohegan, although to look at him you’d think he just stepped off the Mayflower -that’s another story).
So – you know, some folks, and probably all folks on at least a couple of issues, sit on the fence because they don’t want to or really can’t make a commitment or they just see both sides.
That’s not to say that our elected officials should or shouldn’t be that way, or can or cannot afford to be that way. But as a human, it’s not that unnatural.
Re: Blackwell and MTB – surely you jest Mr. Williamson, or you’ve not read your news lately! Seems that Mr. Blackwell isn’t talking to no one: no newspaper-sponsored debates, no appearance with Jim Petro at the City Club, nothing. Now, that said, his official blogger, Matt Naugle, a very engaging and passionate young man, attended the MTB debate between Strickland and Flannery and was very complimentary. It’s hoped that he’ll try to and maybe succeed in persuading Mr. Blackwell that MTB is a fair and appropriate forum. And I think Mr. Petro found it a far better experience that at least some of his advisors might have expected.
However, given the current news coming out of Blackwell’s campaign re: who he will and won’t see, I’m not optimistic. If you have any influence, please -feel free to give a whirl! In all honesty, I absolutely believe that MTB has done nothing but good for every candidate that’s attended. IMHO
If Blackwell prevails in the primary, he may adopt a different strategy afterward. I know Matt Naugle, myself. He is a refreshingly down-to-earth fellow.
Someone who has known all sides of the issues for as long as Strickland has (How could he not? His whole career revolves around issues.) should have been able to draw some conclusions by now and found ways to effectively articulate for the positions he advocates. If he were merely a bystander, it would be easier to understand his indecisiveness. It almost makes me think that Strickland concedes that it’s a foregone conclusion that Ohioans support casinos. I doubt that Ohioans support casinos, since every ballot issue on the matter has gone down to defeat. The pro-gambling lobbyists have curried favor with our legislators, and that’s the arena where gambling really needs to be held in check.