For the past few months, Ted Strickland has been running what one source close to the Kasich campaign called an “attack-of-the-week” style campaign. The decision’s fruits have been dubious, as Strickland trails by 12 points when leaners are included, according to a recent poll. However, Strickland might change his tune, even if he has no plans of stopping in the short term:

‘John Kasich is waging a stealth campaign. The people deserve to know the difference between myself and my opponent. I have said nothing that is not factual and not documented,’ he claimed.
Kasich’s ads stress the number of jobs Ohio lost during Strickland’s time in office during the recession.
Strickland says later ads will be positive and claims he now talks about what he’s done and plans to do with local newspaper and TV reporters.

This isn’t inconceivable. Liberals over at Plunderbund, a progressive Ohio political blog, think the aftermath of the recent “Nilda” ad is the ideal time to execute a one-two punch deal:

Ted Strickland can win if he can look voters in the eye and show them exactly what he’s done as Governor. I’ve yet to meet a voter who didn’t at least pause when I told them about Strickland’s record. It’s not enough to have it on your campaign website. In this environment, he needs to get it on people’s television screens. Ted can win with an ad that acknowledges the problems we’re all facing in this economy and talk about what he’s been doing about it (not talking about it doesn’t remove it as an issue. Instead, it feeds Kasich’s entirely false narrative that Strickland hasn’t done anything effectively regarding the economy.)

One of the items that the folks over at Plunderbund seem especially desperate to see Strickland emphasize is his record as a tax cutting, small government type. “See, Republicans? He’s just like you!”

Except for one problem: If Strickland did that, he’d be pivoting on everything he ever said about Kasich being a George W. Bush rerun. In fact, he’s arguably already done it: According to his website, Strickland (allegedly) “made difficult decisions to reduce his original budget by more than $2 billion – eliminating more than 3,000 positions across state government.”

If Strickland is proud of this fact, why hasn’t he made more hay out of it? Maybe because it would offend public sector unions.