State Senator Kirk Schuring acts like a small letter "d" democrat in voting no on the next two year budget bill whereas Governor Ted Strickland was for denying the people a vote on the matter of whether or not Ohio is to have slots at racetracks.
In an Op-ed (The Repository, July 17th, Kirk Schuring: Why I voted no on state budget), Schuring recognizes that Ohioans and Stark Countians have voted consistently by substantial margins not to allow expanded gambling in Ohio and believes that voting Ohioans should have the final say.
Not only do Ohioans/Stark Countians not get to vote on the "slots at racetracks," the Strickland administration insisted on cover from legal challenge (except in the "discretionary jurisdiction of the Ohio Supreme Court)
Stark County voters by the 2010 election should be getting a better take on Strickland. In 2006, he was the "aw-shucks" guy from Duck Run, Ohio who seemed "as innocent as a lamb"
But Strickland is proving he is not the open, accessible, democratic person his handlers have endeavored to project.
Schuring is more open, accessible and democratic that Ted Strickland.
It is hard to believe, but that clearly seems to be the case.
Strickland is in for a much tougher time in 2010. Why is that?
Because Ohioans are becoming more and more aware that he is not the man the public relations types successfully created in the 2006 election.
Kind of spineless if you ask yours truly.
From The Rep's Robert Wang account of why Oelslager (Oelslager breakes with Republicans, July 14) says voted sort of with Strickland:
Oelslager said he opposed the governor’s plan to install slot machines at race tracks. He said the issue should have been placed on the ballot, but he noted that the bill was a package deal and that he could accept all of it or none of it.Run for political cover Scott!