The Guv's been airing a plethora of television ads over the last few months, including a couple that address the notion that some people may not agree with everything he's done during his first term.
That near-conciliatory tone might almost lead folks to believe he's ready to take responsibility for being in charge of the state.
But then you read in this morning's Indianapolis Star that Lt. Gov. Becky Skillman blames past administrations for the fact that Indiana lags its neighbors in the use of ethanol in state government.
The Daniels administration says the state's standing reflects Indiana's late arrival to the alternative fuels game.
"There are several states in the Midwest that have been producing biofuels for a number of years, so their culture is more in tune with biofuels than it is in Indiana," said Lt. Gov. Becky Skillman, who oversees the state agriculture and energy departments. "That's why we've had to work so hard to catch up."
Clearly, someone forgot to give her the new set of talking points before she returned that phone call.
It's very difficult to see how Skillman's comments (or the article to which you link) assign blame.
I'd like to see your logic on that one.
It's pretty simple, really.
Instead of simply saying, "We've got more work to do," our dear Lieutenant Governor chose to say, "We've got more work to do because past administrations were late to the game."
Which, by the way, isn't true.
If you've paid any attention to politics over the last three years, you've no doubt noticed that one of Daniels' favorite games, prior to this latest round of television ads, has been to blame prior administrations for any negative coverage he's received.
He started doing it before he took office, and he just never stopped.
It's been three years. If Indiana state government isn't using ethanol or tracking ethanol use on par with surrounding states, why is that someone else's fault?
Oh, I remember. Because it's an election year.
I don't see that she says that at all. The sole quote from Skillman is:
"There are several states in the Midwest that have been producing biofuels for a number of years, so their culture is more in tune with biofuels than it is in Indiana,...That's why we've had to work so hard to catch up."
Where does she say, anywhere, that prior administrations are to blame? The editorial to which you link seems to take that tone, but on the basis of a single quote, I am reluctant to make that same conclusion (in either direction), without additional evidence that Ms. Skillman was speaking of prior administrations directly.
"The Daniels administration says the state's standing reflects Indiana's late arrival to the alternative fuels game."
Then the article goes on to describe how the administration hasn't really done anything in the way of tracking, and what it has done isn't very effective.
That sounds to me like this administration is to blame, not prior ones.
I understand that you may not see what I see; I've been writing about this stuff for three years, after all. But I can assure you there has been and continues to be a concerted effort to pin blame back on prior administrations every time Daniels gets hit with a negative story.
Objectively speaking, I never said it was a bad strategy, but someone has to call him on it.
Again, at what point will this administration be responsible for its shortfalls?
It's kinda like when Bush the First blamed Reagan for the national debt, but at the same time took credit for the fall of the Berlin Wall.
It's politics.