Who do you want as the next Governor of Ohio?

[Disclaimer]

I really wasn't hoping for a guy lead by 'faith'. He's definitely pro-business, pro-Wall St, not so much pro-labor.

And Strickland was more more pro-gun based on the endorsements he received.

Kasich: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=27017

Voting record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=27017

Strickland: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=311

Voting record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=311

In summation, I still think Strickland was a better choice, but we'll see how bipartisan Kasich is going to be. I think I'll be ok until he starts trying to shove morals and religion down my throat.

[C-bus]

I really wasn't hoping for a guy lead by 'faith'. He's definitely pro-business, pro-Wall St, not so much pro-labor.

And Strickland was more more pro-gun based on the endorsements he received.

Kasich: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=27017

Voting record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=27017

Strickland: http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=311

Voting record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=311

In summation, I still think Strickland was a better choice, but we'll see how bipartisan Kasich is going to be. I think I'll be ok until he starts trying to shove morals and religion down my throat.

I agree with the "faith " quote, but isn't Strickland a minister?

[Cheech]

I agree with the "faith " quote, but isn't Strickland a minister?

If he is then he kept it to himself, as it should be.

[Disclaimer]

If he is then he kept it to himself, as it should be.

This. I saw two interviews with Kasich and he emphasized his faith in both of them, Strickland - not so much. Not a huge sample size, but that's what stuck with me. I don't care that people HAVE faith so much as I care they don't base their political decisions on it. Faith is a personal choice, not one to be politicized.

[jporter12]

I think I'll be ok until he starts trying to shove morals and religion down my throat.

Even though you need it...

Seriously though, God doesn't want His people forcing faith on others. He does want it to be shared, but not forced. It is a choice!

[Bad324]

+1 His "hospital franchise tax" resulted in pay cuts that cost me roughly 8% of my gross salary. Good riddance Strickland.

yea the bastards views and tax plan on the Oil & Gas Industry all but killed the Producers this year. It was something like a 70% decline in drilling which accounts for 50% of our companies work.

Thankfully Kasich is pro Oil & Gas so at least for a shortwhile there is some security for my company

[Bad324]

I'm hopeful he can do to our Ohio budget what he did for the Federal budget back in the Clinton presidency

#2 reason I thought he was the lesser of the evils

I really wasn't hoping for a guy lead by 'faith'. He's definitely pro-business, pro-Wall St, not so much pro-labor.

And Strickland was more more pro-gun based on the endorsements he received.

In summation, I still think Strickland was a better choice, but we'll see how bipartisan Kasich is going to be. I think I'll be ok until he starts trying to shove morals and religion down my throat.

I have no good facts so I'll state this is merely opinion I formed in 2 meetings with Kasich. As the selfish prick I can be, I naturally got the opportunity to ask him a few questions that directly affected me.

He is absolutely pro-gun, he just didn't get the endorsements. This was a huge talking point when he was at our Oil & Gas conference in the spring. Now I know they all lie, but he assured that gun rights would be protected.

From what I can tell, he is becoming more and more pro labor because I think he like most people realize thats a good majority of Ohio's sustainability.

The morals will definitely be something to watch and listen for as I agree with you it will probably be prevalent but as far as faith goes, I'm torn. I think it was mainly to appeal to those types of voters who think that faith/religion/what-the-fuck-ever runs the world. I by no means am "faithless" but am not naive enough to believe that someone/thing/being is in control of our decisions

[cfd37buckeye]

I don't think it matters who we all WANT the governor to be, because by choosing either party, one or the other is going to affect the livelihood of a large slice of the population here. I certainly hope that Kasich does not push the issue of right to work. Those of us that work in union jobs will see everything that we worked for flushed down the toilet as far as wages go. I also hope that no one here works in a state government office, because the guy that won the auditors job is all about cutting wages and benefits of government office workers so that they are equal to the public sector. (Columbus Dispatch). Hello Minimum wage !!!!

[cfd37buckeye]

Honestly.....gun control? It is our Constitutional right to bear arms. I think it would be easier to push over Mt. Everest than to change that. I do not base my decision on the gun issue, or abortion or religion. It is about who is going to affect my families way of life.

[buildit]

At this point I'd be happy if government just became a dead duck for the next two years. Honestly, I think our society needs a chance to catch our breath and figure out what the rules really are before we can move ahead. Throwing policy at the wall to see what sticks is bad government.

[cg2112]

I gotta say, I'm really surprised that OR seemed to prefer Kasich, given the number of gun owners around here.

I voted for Strickland. Not because I'm a supporter, but because I was pretty disgusted by this election cycle, particularly Kasich's campaign, and I don't completely hate Strickland, so he got my vote.

[Bad324]

I gotta say, I'm really surprised that OR seemed to prefer Kasich, given the number of gun owners around here.

i had no issue with it after having a conversation with him. Granted not everyone has that luxury but I'm willing to bet jobs and economy far outweigh guns. Which to me have very little chance to be touched anyway due to the constitution

[Disclaimer]

I just hope people remember where we're at today, vs. where we're at two years from now.

Particularly with taxes and the deficit. Since The GOP is trying to convince people they can cut taxes and decrease spending without cutting programs.

[Uncle Punk]

without cutting programs.

Very funny

[cg2112]

I just hope people remember where we're at today, vs. where we're at two years from now.

Particularly with taxes and the deficit. Since The GOP is trying to convince people they can cut taxes and decrease spending without cutting programs.

It all depends on how good they can lie.

One of the reasons Republicans did so well yesterday is because they were able to convince voters that President Obama increased both taxes and the deficit, and the President is a Democrat, so we should vote for Republicans - despite the fact that, thus far, President Obama has not raised taxes and has decreased the deficit. But if you say it loud enough and long enough (and maybe stomp on the heads of a few people who try to call you out on it), people will start to believe you.

[Uncle Punk]

despite the fact

I'm interested

[Disclaimer]

Ezra Klein - The Bush tax plan vs. the Obama tax plan in one chart

^--- covers taxes. Unless you're making over $200k, then I guess you ARE rich enough to be a Republican. You could also check your past 1040 forms, 2008 vs. 2010.

As for the deficit, the CBO data is all there.

http://cbo.gov/budget/budget.cfm

Note where the lines cross the first time... mid-Clinton, then recross back the other way as Bush spent and spent (the party of "fiscal responsibility"). And, you'll see where Obama inherited Bush's mess at the peak separation between revenues and outlays, and now Obama's projected budget is coming back close to converging again. It still needs improvement, but it's heading in the right direction.

But hey, don't let "numbers" and "facts" and "history" get in the way of having an opinion.

Edited November 4, 2010 by JRMMiii

[cg2112]

I'm interested

On the deficit:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/13/901698/-Treasury:-Deficit-8-LOWER-in-1st-11-Mo.-Fiscal-Yr

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63C09I20100413

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/budget-deficit-in-u-s-narrows-13-to-90-5-billion-on-rising-tax-receipts.html

On taxes (he didn't just not raise taxes, he lowered them):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html?_r=1&hp

http://www.bvonmoney.com/2010/10/26/obama-lowered-your-taxes-did-you-know-that/

That's just a small amount of false information that people believe to be true.

Health care is another issue, and a huge one when it comes to misleading the people. Republicans are complaining that if we fine employers a few hundred dollars per employee for not providing health care, they will simply stop proving health benefits, because a few hundred dollars per employee is a whole lot cheaper than a health plan.

In fact, Karl Rove a lengthy article about this in the Wall Street Journal.

It's such a huge mistruth that it's pretty embarrassing. Even without knowing anything about health care (or if your knowledge of the health care bill is isolated to the paragraph before this one), it only takes a little simply logic to figure out why this simply isn't true.

[Bad324]

Health care is another issue, and a huge one when it comes to misleading the people. Republicans are complaining that if we fine employers a few hundred dollars per employee for not providing health care, they will simply stop proving health benefits, because a few hundred dollars per employee is a whole lot cheaper than a health plan.

In fact, Karl Rove a lengthy article about this in the Wall Street Journal.

are you saying this part is mistruth? If so, it is 100% accurate. I am half in charge of the health benefits for our company and taking the fine is leaps and bounds cheaper than paying for health care costs

[Disclaimer]

Ok, so why don't you take the fine then? There must be SOMETHING stopping you from going that direction, right?? I can only think of about half a dozen reasons off the top of my head.

[cg2112]

are you saying this part is mistruth? If so, it is 100% accurate. I am half in charge of the health benefits for our company and taking the fine is leaps and bounds cheaper than paying for health care costs

That part is absolutely a mistruth.

I would say the number of companies that stop providing health care and instead just pay the fee is going to be 0, or close to it.

As it stands right now (and prior to passing the health care bill), a company is under no obligation whatsoever to provide health care plans. You can stop proving your employees health benefits right now, with no penalty (for the moment).

So why are you providing health care right now?

[cfd37buckeye]

It all depends on how good they can lie.

One of the reasons Republicans did so well yesterday is because they were able to convince voters that President Obama increased both taxes and the deficit, and the President is a Democrat, so we should vote for Republicans - despite the fact that, thus far, President Obama has not raised taxes and has decreased the deficit. But if you say it loud enough and long enough (and maybe stomp on the heads of a few people who try to call you out on it), people will start to believe you.

And the fact that most Americans sit on their fat asses watch TV and are unable to pick up a newspaper and read unbiased FACTS, and are unable to form their own opinions.

[redkow97]

Not this little goose-stepper. I'm sick to shit of the GOP and their "Hey' date=' at least we aren't Libtards!!" argument. By picking the lesser of two evils, I'm condoning/enabling the GOP's bullshit. I hope two things happen:

1. Everyone I voted for wins. (not likely)

2. The TeaParty, Libertarians, others completely split the Republican vote and the Democrats pull another victory. I'm over "strategic voting". That shit don't fly with me, anymore.

GOP: Do your fucking job or get the fuck out![/quote']

I wish more Americans had the courage to vote this way.

I voted Libertarian in 2008, because that's who I thought was the best candidate.

I don't like the "it's a 2-party system" attitude, because it's a circular argument. That assumption is what KEEPS it a 2-party system.

Political views aside, I want the person in office to be qualified. The Democrats could nominate a sophomore senator with almost no experience and... oh wait. He's black, so he got elected.

It was a brilliant tactical move - but even democrats have to admit that there were and are more QUALIFIED liberals who should have gotten the nomination. But it's not about qualifications anymore; it's about the best CANDIDATE. Who will people vote for; not who actually will make the best legislator, etc.

[Zach]

and the fact that most americans sit on their fat asses watch tv and are unable to pick up a newspaper and read unbiased facts, and are unable to form their own opinions.

lol

[RVTPilot]

And the fact that most Americans sit on their fat asses watch TV and are unable to pick up a newspaper and read unbiased FACTS, and are unable to form their own opinions.

Good luck with that, and finding a newspaper that prints unbiased information. Politicians look for endorsements from newspapers who in turn stump for them. I agree that a lot of the general public sits back and let's their political views be dictated to them by the media (whom always have an angle or axe to grind) but finding clear, concise, and straight forward information is easier said than done, especially with as much stumping and advertising done to muddy the waters and skew the facts. Even the heartiest of those who work to educate themselves on the issues find its a full-time job that requires OT.