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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.