2 ms·

There's nothing savvy about her position. She's not going to be the broadband provider's favorite in 2012 against any generic republican (let alone Pat McRory).

There's nothing savvy about her position. She's not going to be the broadband provider's favorite in 2012 against any generic republican (let alone Pat McRory). And I doubt the legislature gives her any concession at all for the convenience of avoiding another vote. It's cowardice to let the bill pass while talking about how bad it is. Veto the damn thing. Sure, the legislature would override a veto, but let them. Let them own this bill instead of being complicit in it. Personally, I'd frame this as an anti-internet-startup bill. Internet startups need the internet, much of the state doesn't have any, and the rest of the state has terrible monopolistic providers.

Spyro7 15y ago
"There's nothing savvy about her position." She's a political animal. In the calculus of politics, what doesn't help you hurts you. Picking a fight over this would make her a hero to hacker types, but it could possibly burn bridges elsewhere. Unfortunately, media companies punch above their weight in this country. From a purely self-interested perspective, she made the savvy choice. Stating her disapproval without being too belligerent. Call it cynicism or call it realism - this is the way these things tend to happen. "It's cowardice to let the bill pass while talking about how bad it is. Veto the damn thing." I'm curious to know, since when, in recent times, has bravery been the hallmark of a politician? Almost by definition, the political class tends to be remarkably risk-averse.