Just days ago the wingnut blogosphere in Ohio was jumping up and down at an opportunity to use the 2004 line “I voted for it, before I voted against it” line. Most are stuck in 2004 – surely Lincoln Legos boy is (see latest post).
So, the argument was that Ted voted against a bill that he wrote and then he took credit for it. Not only do they not know what year it is, they apparently are a bit unfamiliar with the legislative process. Junk gets added or taken away from bills all the time that would make one pause before voting for or against it. The reality of the situation is that Ted voted against the House version of the bill that didn’t have certain things in it he wanted (hence the accussed flip), but then voted for the Senate version (final version), which included his amendment (hence the “voted against his own bill, then voted for it” charge).
It’s a nuanced thing and our friends on the right are black/white kinda people. On/Off switch types. That stuff in the middle is too hard to wrap their brains around…unless you are a wingnut on spin cycle. THEN, my friends, bring on that gray in the middle!
Now that their own Ken Taftwell has been caught not participating in legislative process, but actually making fundamental shifts in one of his core beliefs and campaign bullet points, we find the right wing all awash in nuance:
Ah ha! So when Blackwell, in the Enquirer, is saying that since HB 228 removes laws such as parental notification or requiring women to get information about abortion risks and alternatives, if the courts struck down the ban, then those provisions would no longer exist!
Aha! So it’s a double standard we seek!