Ted loses another blogger over net neutrality
Scott is a regular at MTB. He's not happy.
I for one, would like to know why they - especially Ted Strickland, voted for this bill. The Ted Strickland of the Broadband initiative. This is an outrage - and is effectively an endorsement killer. I am therefore writing to the Strickland campaign and withdrawing the endorsement, until I hear from Strickland what caused this change in position from when I met with him at the MTB debate. Anyone interested in net neutrality and equal/fair access should do the same.Ted, please explain. Perhaps you weren't worried about losing the support of a couple bloggers, heck, they're just bloggers. Perhaps you have some substantive reason. Cough it up.
Endorsement withdrawn.
You've never supported Strickland and have taken every opportunity to slam him.
This bill was in a markup. That's hardly the end of the process and it could still be amended. You guys are acting like this bill is set in stone.
And I respectfully disagree with Scott that this bill prevents Strickland from doing his broadband initiative. That's just not accurate.
I'll look back at the MTB debate, but I don't off-hand see any comments that say he's "reversed his position."
http://blog.oh02.com/
get a grip. Ted is playing politics with this vote, he's using the process to have it all ways all the time, and it requires an explanation.
but on anything. Don't mischaracterize what I said. I never said you've been lying in wait to attack Ted on net neutrality. I said you're using this as an opportunity to attack Strickland who you've never really suported.
You're being completely unreasonable. Strickland couldn't get the changes he wanted in the committee, but that doesn't mean he can't get them elsewhere. Maybe, just maybe, he figures the changes can be made elsewhere, but clearly can't be made in the Commerce Committee.
even if Brown and ted couldnt get the changes, there is NO reason to vote for this version. NONE. not after being on the record going the other way. He wants the best of both worlds.
This isnt even remotely defensible. And you can hardly accuse me of not supporting Ted.
Ted sees this bill has having benefits on issues other than on protecting net neutrality. Stranger things have happened.
What's to defend? A bill that is not written in stone, that countless people want to see changed already was sent to the next point in the process where it can be changed after it became clear that it could not be changed any further in its current stage.
You guys are looking at this with total tunnel vision. Is your problem with the bill itself or the absence of net neutrality?
If it's with the bill itself (outside of the net neutrality), then I'm sorry you're disappointed, but I don't see anywhere in the MTB transcripts where Strickland said he would oppose this bill. If it's only on the net neutrality issue, then calm down. There's plenty of process to be played out.
we should let em all skip through the process and just be grateful they know better than us !
what was I thinking ! Why even bother to support Democrats, we should just let the Republicans continue to write the bills and just watch it go through the process - after all that's never created bad law has it -the Dems have always been able to get their amendments in at the last minute and save the day ! Hurray !
Way to not listen to what I was saying and straw man the argument.
What I said is maybe Ted simply disagrees with you that it's not a bad bill in principle and he believes it should continue on the process where it at least has a chance to get the changes (i.e. net neutrality) he wants made elsewhere.
I'm getting a mixed message of criticism here. It looks like some of you just don't like the bill whether it had net neutrality or not but are using the neutrality issue to garner support.
you're a moron. i'll decide who i "really support", not you. that's the point of this, you nitwit. if Ted tells MTB one thing and then does another, that's going to effect how much i support him.
Where has Ted said that he would vote against this bill if the net neutrality amendment failed?
Where, Russo?
it's not just net neutrality - its community and rural build out and this bill has none of that to make it happen. providers can cherry pick where the most money is.
How does THAt fit in with Teds goals ? It doesn't other than reap a bunch of cash from the telco lobby.
when the full House votes on it, and again in the Senate subcommittee, then the Senate committee, then the Senate, then in the House and Senate instructions to the conference, and then in the conference, and then in the final House and Senate vote to approve the conference report......
This isn't a one-shot thing. The bill is going to be voted on by the House in the spring. Then it's got to go through the Senate. Both houses will have to pass conference instructions, they'll be a conference, etc.
Legislating just doesn't work the way you suggest. Because an amendment failed doesn't mean he has to vote against the bill, especially when they will be other opportunities to change the bill in environments where party voting discipline isn't so influential. The chairman of the Commerce committee was against the amendment, Strickland voted for it. Once it's in the full house, the chairman has less influence. Why should he vote against a bill he otherwise supports if he knows there will be opportunities to get the changes he wants but could not get in the committee elsewhere?
Committee votes are almost always predicitable. Strickland voted to send it to the House, where I'm sure he's expected there to be an effort to amend it.
so Ted gets to vote with all sides all the time because the process requires lots of votes? is that your argument?
Ted gets to say one thing to a bunch of bloggers, another thing to Microsoft, Intel, Google etc, i.e. big donors who support the Markey amendment in the subcommittee, and then another thing in the full committee to the other big donors who don't support the Markey amendment, and then can run around willy nilly voting this way and that throughout the rest of the process because the opportunity is there to do so?
nice leadership. i'd like to hear Ted's explanation, not yours.
Have you even been watching how bills are passed lately ? I dont think you could have been.
How many Dem amendments have passed on the house floor ?
How many times have Dems been part of conference ?
Do Brown or Strickland legislate in the Senate ?
At what point in the process are we supposed to say - uh-oh this thing might pass and we better get off our asses and do something ?
I say that time is now. Strickland and Brown just signaled support for this bill as is by voting it out of committee.
And that's what's necessary.
If this particluar vote had happened before MTB had ever sat down with Ted Strickland, you can be sure some participant would ask Strickland about this particular vote and how it fits in with what he has said he wants. So it's totally reasonable to say, now, tell us your strategy. What are we missing? Or did you in fact not mean what you'd said? If you do mean it, how do you intend to promote and protect that agenda item?
Those are the questions I would like Sherrod Brown and Ted Strickland to answer in regard to the current status of this bill.
All reasonable questions that deserve answers. Still plenty of time to decide who will and won't get our votes.
the only person who can truly answer why he did what he did. His reasoning for voting that way.
I said in my piece that my endorsement was withdrawn pending his explanation. I have given him an opportunity to respond, and will await his reply.
I'm just a small-fry blogger. Who gives a crap what I think, who I endorse? Does Ted? I don't think so.
The issue of net-neutrality and avoiding corporate take-over of the internet is an important issue to me. As a voter and potential supporter, I would like an explaination from Mr. Strickland.
http://blog.oh02.com/
feeling kinda warm and Fuzzy.
thanks OH2
D.... as WOM goes, so goes Ohio!
Seriously, if we don't take each other seriously, no one else will either. As the events of this week has shown, attention on the blogsphere can change the course of events.
I'm sure that Strickland's campaign is listening to this and we'll see some effort to communicate back. We'll just have to see.
Scott, I think this is exactly the right kind of opportunity to ask a politician about a vote and I bet it reflects many, many, many such opportunities politicians SHOULD face up to but end up not doing so because they Blackwell themselves up with groups they know will never ask.
Obviously, most bloggers are not such people. And frankly, I'd give points to politicians just for facing these opportunities and providing answers, even if I don't like the answers. It's better than pretending that we either don't exist or aren't worth acknowledging.
It's one thing to respect authority, but we must also develop and use the healthiest, most vigorous sense of when to question it, and how to question it, and never give up questioning it until we've gotten an answer.
this bill doesn't even have a number yet. does anyone know if this bill gives $1,000 to each poor family in american to help pay for internet service? does it provide aid to sudan? has anyone who is losing their mind over this even read the bill? if not, here's a tip: relax, wait until you have something that might resemble information, and then make a decision.
I would also point out Strickland has done this before, back in February the Hispanic Community of my town was not happy with his vote for the "Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005." There is some real concern in the hispanic community that no one is paying attention to them as far as State Candidates.
http://glasscityjungle.blogspot.com/2006/02/lucas-county-latino-caucus-and-ted.html
So I'd have to say honestly I don't think he ever "had" my vote as far as the primary anyway.
Or nobody?
If Strickland has "lost" people's votes on this issue, does that mean that people will instead be voting in the primary for the guy who accuses Strickland of being gay and hiring alleged sexual offenders, and who can't get his story straight about intelligent design or abortion?
And does that mean that in the general people, who were going to vote for Strickland and who "endorsed" him, will now vote for the guy who will do or say anything to get the support of the evangelical right, is against equal human rights, and who acts as though he believes ethics has no place in public life?
Just curious.
let's not get into the whole "if you dont vote for strickland you're voting for death" routine, we kinda did that to, well, death with Brown.
This is exactly how Ted has been able to play us all with his immigration vote, bankruptcy vote, meeting brian hicks and now this.
At some point you have to draw the line and say STOP. He's acting like Jim Petro
Talk about going too far.
We can disagree about this legislation and Ted's vote and what it means, but to say that Ted Strickland is "acting like Jim Petro" is just too ridiculous. Keep it up and someone will have to revoke your poetic license. :)
"Play us?" Now Strickland has been "playing us?"
He's never played you. He's record has been right out there all along and we've been talking ad nausem in the beginning about his bankruptcy vote.
Strickland has never played you or said vote for him or die. Calm down, you're letting your emotions take over too much.
But I will say that I cannot believe that you have only voted for candidates who agree with you on every single issue. This is why it's so hard for Congressional candidates to seek other office. Their views have been made and able to twist by a public history of thousands of votes over their terms.
It's ok to disagree, but let's also be fair.
I dont need candidates to agree with me on every issue. But there are SOME issues that are non negotiable. They become increasingly non negotiable when said pol has flip flopped in the past said one thing, done another. Or done one thing apologized afterwards.
At some point it is beholden on people to say, NO, Enough already. If you continue to act this way I will not and cannot support you.
for me, fucking up the internet is unforgivable.
Telco's are already installing equipment that allows deep packet analysis that could then slow down or block certain traffic types from specific content providers in anticipation of this bill. they even have this ability written into the IP6 standards
How is granting NATIONAL franchise licenses going to be good for localities ? It removes their ability to negotiate content and service levels and puts it all into the massive FCC bureaucracy.
How does it benefit the millions of people without broadband access when the only law is a guideline asking for expansion with no remedy to make it happen ?
Anyone who supports this is doing so simply to curry favor with the telco's and their millions of dollars of PAC money. Shit they have even been astroturfing this issue because they cant win the argument on the merits.
Ted votes for the amendment to placate the content providers (see I tried !) then votes it out of committee to please the telco's (See I have your back!)
This is EXACTLY what petro does. Swaps his support on issues depending upon the audience.
It's bullshit and pity for Ted and Sherrod people are watching and they fucking care.
You think this is a big issue on political blogs ? what for the shit storm on the tech blogs which are much bigger - like this one
Staff, any credibility that you had left (and, let's be honest, it wasn't much) is gone after that ridiculous comment.
I'm drawing the line and saying STOP to you. You're acting like a moron.
must also be morons
And it is not your position on this issue that makes you a moron. You are a moron for comparing Ted Strickland to Jim Petro. Also, your spelling is usually awful.
so nice we resorted to personal attacks - always a clear sign you have nothing.
Ted votes for net neutrality then votes against it
. . . Strickland has been "playing us?" Do you really believe that he is like Jim Petro? Would you now vote for Blackwell or Petro over Strickland if the general election were held tomorrow?
I'm not saying that you must be beholden to every candidate with a "D" behind his name - I just want to know if you think Ken or Jim would make a better governor than Ted?
Your comments make it sound like you do.
After some of his votes I don't have a lot of trust in Ted when it comes to corporate friendly legislation - this doesn't exactly help that.
Not voting is always an option so to is indie as a protest - or better still pressure Ted to quit playing both sides of important issues and side with the people.
you folks who want everyone to just shut up and suck it up for the good of the party frankly make me sick and it's why the state and the country is in such crappy shape. then to start name calling like a freeper because folks won't.
Paragraph #1 - I might disagree with you, but I can see where you're coming from and can respect that.
Paragraph #2 - It sounds good, but his "playing both sides" is your interpretation of the issue. And who are "the people" of whom you speak? Is it the same "majority" that you couldn't define in the thread above?
Paragraph #3 - Gimme a break. I don't want you to "suck it up for the good of the party." I don't give a rat's ass how you vote. But you stated that Ted Strickland was like Jim Petro, and that's utterly ridiculous, and because of it I called you a name. An appropriate one under the circumstances. I'm surprised that you were so offended by it. Name-calling seems to be your most oft-used weapon when engaging in a debate of the issues.
I looked at Flannery and I initially thought I'd vote for him but as of this very moment in time if I had to vote today? I wouldn't vote for either one of them in the primary. I am voting because there are other candidates I want to vote for in the Democratic Primary. Now in the general I am going to be forced to make a decision. I would never ever support Blackwell or Petro. At that point it would be feeling like I needed to vote against the Republican Governor candidate rather than "for" Strickland. Which is not a position I want to be in but, I will not vote for him in the primary, call it my little message that he needs to pay attention not only on this issue but several others.
In the past in situations like this in the General I would have voted Libertarian. Yet I'm not sure if I am willing to take the risk that doing that could give either Petro or Blackwell a win. Thankfully I have time until November.
Some of you may not like that answer but it's my honest feeling at this point.
It's your vote. And I appreciate your candor.
Personally I look for windows to promote positive change. Except for the AG race they have all but closed in the Democratic Party on the state level. That means that I am just about done. I focus on local races EXCEPT when I see one of those open windows.
For me the 2006 statewide window has almost closed. Once it has closed I'm done. That means I ignore it and focus on other windows that are still open. That means I don't talk about the Senate race, and I don't talk about the Governors race. Sure, I'll vote for them, but that's all the energy I'll expend on them. They've given me nothing to earn my support, so I'll do likewise. I don't go all apeshit for a candidate just because they have a D after their name. That's just me.
Right now neither Sherrod Brown nor Ted Strickland have put anything substantial onto the table to indicate that they represent my interests. They talk a good game, but that's irrelevant to me. I'd love to be proven wrong, and if I am I will act accordingly. I think that both Strickland and Brown have great potential, but so far I see nothing but and little willingness to realize it.
My energies are focused on the long-term. Writing tools... building relationships... team building... scouting good players. I'm patient. I'm realistic. I'm not a sucker. Thank god I don't do this for a living so I'm free to act as I want.
http://blog.oh02.com/
You so often say thoughtful and perceptive things, and ask very good questions. I appreciate it, for what my measly two cents is worth, and I bet the Strickland and Brown campaigns do too, even if they don't say so publicly. Don't stop -- Ohio needs your brain!
Things can get a tad too personal at times, and I don't like to see Democrats -- or progressives (peace out, Greens!) act like the Gingham dog and the Calico cat (if I had Alan's skill I'd insert the obligatory awwww- inspiring photo here) -- maybe it is just primary season familial feuding.
I look forward to hearing more about just why they voted the way they did. I caught the tail-end of what sounded like a relevant interview on Fresh Air, the NPR show with Terry Gross, which I'll try to listen to online later. I'm not one of their constituents, so they may not get back to me very fast, but I think I'll see what I can find out. Maybe having a low profile will be useful?!
Anyway, we're stuck with a two party system -- Gore Vidal said we only have one party, the property party, years ago. They've done so much to make it all but impossible for third party candidates that we need to figure out how to work with people who can get elected. (Herb Asher seemed to think that Ohio is more two-party-limiting than other states when he talked to the Worthington Area Democrats about reform prospects at our last meeting.)
If politics is the art of the possible, I sure hope all the intelligent and/or elected Democrats will figure out how to work together. This state -- this country -- is such a sad and scary mess now, and so many of us are trying to figure out how to be helpful -- when I do phonebanking (not my favorite thing) I am amazed at how many people really want to talk about important issues, and how much they care.
I personally don't think that we are "stuck" with the two Parties. Our electoral system is very ridged and brittle but it is not absolute. When things get really really bad things just snap like they did with the Republicans in the 19th century.
The Democratic Party is so out of touch with their base that if they don't wake up eventually something else will rise up and replace it. It will be drastic just as it was for our Country before the civil war. Perhaps it will be some sort of fusion between the Green Party and the Libertarians. People may not have noticed but the groundwork was already laid during the 2004 Ohio recount battle.
I have great hope in the potential of the Democratic Party to lead. I prey that my hopes will be realized instead of my fears. So far my fears have won every time.
http://blog.oh02.com/
Listened to their criticism and said he will oppose those provisions when the bill comes back to the vote. What more do you want him to do?
I would also point out that Ted currently has the obligation to represent the views of the Sixth Congressional District of Ohio, something he takes very seriously.
speaking out and being critical works.
so much for your theory of shut up and wait for the process to roll forward.
You have a habit of misunderstanding me.
I never said shut up and wait for the process to roll forward. What I said was to calm down and wait for the process to roll forward.
All this hysterics about windows being closed, pulling endorsements, he's Jim Petro, etc. is not productive and over the top.
I'm also saying it's clear that the issue isn't really what people are saying it is. It's not the net neutrality issue at all. If the amendment had passed, it sounds like you and others still would be criticizing Strickland.
And, I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree with you and Russo saying that Ted is trying to have it both ways, he's said something at MTB and did something else, etc.
I think you're exaggerating your case and you lose credibility in doing so.
And frankly, don't you want a governor who will listen to alternative views and take corrective action? I know I wish we had that in a President.
I think you have the minority view on this subject. The pressure on this issue is going to increase as the days roll by.
"not productive" - for who ?
Unlike special telco interests we only have 1 tool. Our vote. With blogs we have a second - our voice. It needs to be loud because politicians ears are dampened down by the $10 bills stuffed in their ears.
Ted is having it both ways. He voted for net neutrality then voted against it. He votes against it served no purpose but to send a message to the lobbyists wanting it to pass - the wrong message to send.
Yes net neutrality isnt the only issue with this bill - it has other horrible aspects too - such as national franchising for cable. But those aspects are far less damaging - and far less understood.
unlike you I can separate Strickland the congressmam voting for crap and Strickland the candidate. right now the former isnt helping the latter.
I'm sorry but I think you aren't separating Strickland the Congressman voting and Strickland the candidate. Your whole point requires that you can't separate the two. If you could separate them, then you should only be asking yourself this, would his constitutents disapprove of this vote?
I don't think voting for the bill after the amendment was defeated is "voting against net neutrality." At that point, net neutrality wasn't on the ballot. I understand your opinion, but I think it's a misleading view of the situation.
This issue was framed as being about net neutrality. However, it sounds like you and others would have criticized Ted if he had voted for a version of the bill that had the net neutrality language, no?
If so, then that's fine. But then don't frame this issue as being about net neutrality if it's not really the issue.
My saying "Not productive" was not about you speaking out, it's your hyperbole. I may be of the minority view on this subject here, but I don't think I represent the minority view of voters. I'm sure this space will be preoccupied with this for days, no doubt. But in the end? Most voters won't care. And the bill may be changed to include the language you and Strickland wanted. What then?
I've never seen such a reaction from something that is still a fluid situation.