Seriously, Tim, enough with the Lee bashing. It’s already old. The guy lost in a whalloping and humilating defeat. Why do we need to continue to beat this dead horse?
Seriously, Tim, I sincerely doubt it takes you to continue beating this dead horse to keep Lee from running. I think the 39% he got in the last election, coupled with he’s at retirement age after twenty some years of public service, and two other statewide defeats under his belt should do the trick.
I don’t think it takes Tim Russo to put that over the top. He’s done. Enough already.
you really are trying to bait me into bringing up the decision to resurrect Lee from the grave that Ted Strickland made in the first place, aren’t you. just admit it.
Anonymous
No, I’m trying to tell you to get over your Lee Fisher fixation… Jesus Christ, you’re random today.
I mean, you wrote a post claiming that Lee Fisher has only ran one ad in the general, which wasn’t even true. Now, you’re saying he CAUSED Strickland to lose, which is also not true.
You’re just begging for an excuse to dump on Lee Fisher. My opposition to him was just tactical. I didn’t think he could win. You, on the hand, are borderline obsessive over him to the point well beyond anything productive.
the world did not end because your hero Ted Strickand lost. in fact, it wasn’t even as bad a result as 1994. if i were you, i’d take solace from that. but you aren’t.
the fact is, your hero Ted Strickland lost because of the, your word, “tactical” decisions he made, repeatedly, to put a known loser at the heart of his political calculus, for more than 4 years, starting from the moment said known loser joined your hero’s ticket. that was a ticking time bomb for your hero. it just exploded in your hero’s face.
you know this, you blogged it at length, and now that said known loser has caused your hero to also lose, for some bizarre reason, you’re letting the known loser off the hook. the only reason i can think this makes any sense at all is because apparently your hero didn’t make any mistakes, including the decision to place at the heart of his political survival said known loser.
if i were you, i’d be more mad at the known loser now than ever. but i guess some of us can get over it faster than others. i’m glad you can.
Anonymous
I asked for what?
Because I dare disagree with you?
Yet again with the Lee obsession.
I don’t think Lee Fisher was the “but for” cause of Strickland’s lost. And you’ve yet to offer any evidence to support such a ridiculous suggestion.
Sorry, that the guy who said “if she files, she wins” and “Ed Fitzgerald is toast” is being questioned that just maybe, just maybe, Obama had more to do with it than Lee Fisher.
i didn’t realize that disagreement also equalled “shut up”. thanks for clearing that up.
i have no obsession with Lee. i have an obsession with winning, and specifically, Democrats winning. Lee is the “but for” cause of Ted’s loss, feel free to disagree, but i don’t like being told to STFU when i feel i’m damn right, and have argued it convincingly in a very link heavy post which you couldn’t be bothered to look at before i published it.
and if you want me to, i’ll be happy to write a post about the low turnout in Lee’s own home county, count those votes, and come up with more evidence about how Lee fucked your hero over on that front, too. just give me some time to dig up the returns from Shaker Hts.
but since you want me to STFU, i’ll just stand on the several million dollars of unanswered Portman ads, which hit Ted just as hard as they hit Lee, as evidence enough. you should too, since you argued it yourself.
