As with all candidates retaining their incumbency, I expected — as I rolled out of bed and to the Statehouse early Monday morning — that Gov. Bob Taft’s address would be one of lofty promises and one of stern, realistic appraisals of a situation which he will claim to be able to fix. There would be applause lines, time for giving thanks, a setting of abstract goals in a climate of known adversity.

And I knew, too, when I sat in the velvet seats, I was somewhat of a wolf in sheep’s clothing: a malcontent non-Republican in a gray wool suit infiltrating the Republican camp — a place of prayers disguised as invocations, of pomp and circumstance and old-guard grandeur.

Admittedly, I have not been a Taft supporter in the past, nor am I eager to endorse him now. I ripped his past campaign, and I voted for Hagan — not for the man so much as the entity of a “Not Taft” platform. But as I sat and listened to the governor’s laundry list of problems plaguing the state, I realized if there was ever a time for burying the hatchet, it is now.

The economy — especially the portion concentrated in Ohio — is falling to pieces, as jobs across the socio-economic spectrum are being lost. The budget is far from balanced, and the cuts that may have to be made will most likely affect everyone at some point during the next four years.

So I and others who did not support Taft or Bradley or any ideals they stand for come to a crossroads — not a question of surrender, but a choice between pragmatics and pride. It is a road with two choices: one leading to constant and vile whistleblower criticism and another which could lead to the bipartisan problem-solving effort Taft claims he is hoping for.

In a perfect world, I’d choose the whistleblower critic. I felt a change from a man like Taft was exactly what Ohio needed, and the past campaign exemplified how disparity in funding can throw elections. Plus, Taft is easy to criticize, and it’s obvious his problems set him up for a pending doom not seen since Nixon during the Watergate scandal.

I remember too well he not only ignored promises, but he has completely shunned and broken them. While he ripped Hagan for being tax-happy in Cuyahoga County during the last campaign, he himself has been charged, by a study cited in the Cincinnati Enquirer, as being “the highest-taxing governor in America recently.”

But, when it all comes down to it, there is somewhat of a futility in simply heckling the new governor, and though I don’t agree with Taft, nor would I vote for him again, I have nothing left to do, no other option than to hope for the best and try to make it happen. The problems facing the state, the country and the world are too great for petty partisanship, too great for party bickering and complaints without hope or answers.

Things like joblessness and funding for education, poverty and war should have no partisanship, and these problems will not be solved with it blocking the way.

And Taft promised a bipartisan effort in several areas Monday afternoon. As I sat around a wood table with Ohio’s heavy-hitters of political journalism grilling the figureheads of the Third Frontier, he made promises to use a two-party effort to ensure better funding for higher education, a balanced budget and all his other campaign highlights.

So it seems now is the time for that partnership. For me, now is the time for the benefit of the doubt, for second chances, and even for things I would normally call as long a shot as supporting a Republican governor, though I do not do so wholeheartedly, or without compromise from the other side.

My last-ditch support of a man who I do not really agree with hinges on the man himself, and the execution of the promises he has made — for solutions, action and open-mindedness — lie with him. But on both sides, it’s time to choose the road less traveled: a path of bipartisanship and innovation without petty disputes or inefficiency.

It’s the only path that leads anywhere.

John Ross is a junior in comparitive studies and can be reached for comment at [email protected].