LaRose issued a formal statement (which I read on a conservative blog) as a non-mea culpa. I will share with you, in part:
"This bill helps restore balance to the public employee collective bargaining process, while also protecting the rights of our state's hardworking public service employees."
Question, senator: How can you restore balance to a collective bargaining process that won't exist for public union workers once the measure becomes law? And do you really suppose that by adding "hardworking" to the public workers you will salve their feelings? I hope you can see where this is going.
And here's another thought from the young Tea Party-influenced senator :
"My vote was not, and never will be, motivated by political considerations or outside pressure. Anyone who says otherwise does not know me or understand my unwavering commitment to serving the citizens of our community. I am duty bound to do what's best for Ohio, even when it may be unpopular. We must work together to bring prosperity back to the Buckeye State."
Well, Gov Kasich, who is in love with the union-busting bill, wasn't taking any chances. He visited the Senate Republican caucus the night before the vote and you can be sure that it wasn't a casual social drop-in.
While we're at it, senator: You say the bill was improved because strikers wouldn't be put in jail. Fine, although there's doubtless not a soul among your critics who doesn't believe the last-minute amendments actually made it much worse.
Sorry, but I've saved the best for last:
"I opposed the initial version of the bill based on fundamental objections with a few of its provisions. By standing steadfast on what I believed to be fair, I was able to work with my colleagues to protect the essential right of employes to collectively bargain."
You may not have heard, senator, but there will be no essential right of public employes to collectively bargain. Orwell had something to say about such logic. He called it doublethink.