The governor said he likely would veto any attempt by the General Assembly to end-run voters by letting Ohio racetracks install slot machines without a statewide vote. Strickland knows what most Ohioans know: Gambling is an economic-development tool only for casino owners, and big-money gambling spawns heartache. Three cheers for a governor who, on this question, leads.

Of course, Strickland's comment was not quite the same as saying he'd fight any tracks-slots ballot issue legislators might send voters -- a move he can't block. But his Thursday statement maybe shot holes into the hulls of the Statehouse lobbying armada commissioned, provisioned and officered by horse-tracks and gambling-gear vendors.

Then, also on Thursday, Redfern, the Democratic state chairman, as his job description requires, gave Ohio Republicans an invitation they're probably inclined to ignore. But it's an invite Republicans just might be foolish to shrug off, because, accepted, it could backfire on Redfern's fellow Democrats.

In a speech prepared for the Columbus Metropolitan Club, Redfern said that, whether in Washington or Columbus, Republicans -- whom he conceded were once a party of ideas -- have become the party of "no." Some of Redfern's gripes, naturally, were soapbox standards. But on kindergarten-through-12th-grade education, how to pay for it and how to measure its progress, Redfern hit a bull's-eye.

The state's No. 2 Democrat observed, correctly, that Statehouse Republicans are all but united against Strickland's school plan. (As previously opined here, some of what Strickland wants to do about K-12 schooling is constructive, and it looks to Ohio's future.) And, as Redfern said, "In terms of the education plan, Republicans have offered plenty of criticism. But no real ideas of their own."

Beyond the fact that Republicans have defended school choice -- which in the face of Strickland's attacks on school choice, is a must-do -- Redfern, in the main, is correct. But what might surprise Redfern, and many other people, is that at least a couple of savvy Republicans might just agree with Redfern.

In recent weeks, at least two very shrewd Republicans have privately, very privately, griped that Ohio House and state Senate Republicans should not only have crafted their own K-12 school plan but should have announced it before the governor announced his. Object: To frame the debate to (a) protect suburban taxpayers (b) save and expand school choice and (c) offer real change in classrooms. In fairness, Strickland's plan does offer some real change, but it'd be change that doesn't really rankle teachers' unions. That speaks volumes.

True, the counterargument among Republicans was that they (and then-Govs. George V. Voinovich and Bob Taft) had done plenty to address Ohio Supreme Court edicts on school funding. Moreover, the high court itself had (properly) left specifics to the legislative branch of state government. So, argued some Republicans, to offer a K-12 plan this year would, at least symbolically, have repudiated all that the GOP had already done for schools. (And it's a lot.)

But that's a seminar-room argument. The decision by Ohio General Assembly Republicans not to offer a 2009 GOP school plan left Strickland's plan as the default position, legislatively. And one of the oldest arguments in the Statehouse debate-book, and it's an argument that works, is that you can really oppose something only if you offer a better idea as a substitute. That may not be how the Founding Fathers did business, but it's how Ohio does.

Thomas Suddes is a former legislative reporter with The Plain Dealer in Cleveland and writes from Ohio University.

tsuddes@gmail.com