I still don't get the appeal of Kasich. I get the appeal of his basic ideology to some people, but he's all sizzle and no steak. He hasn't given me one quantifiable thing that I can hang my hat on that I can say Kasich will do _______ during his term.

 

Yes he has. He will kill the 3-C. Beyond that... I don't know.

I think the mentality is that conservatives are voting for him not for what he stands for but because he is "not Strickland".  We saw that mentality in voters during 2008 in favor of the democrats, and now we're seeing the momentum swing the other way now in races all over the country.  That's why some of these wack jobs like Angle in Nevada are surprisingly doing well despite horrible favorability ratings even within their own party. 

 

Strickland has made this race very interesting.  It seems to me that he is doing a better job of campaigning than Kasich (I don't know if thats due to him raising more money or just being more experienced in that department). 

We saw that mentality in voters during 2008 in favor of the democrats, and now we're seeing the momentum swing the other way now in races all over the country.

 

I think you saw more of that in 2004 than in 2008, and it didn't work so well.  It's hard to run on simply the platform that you're not the opposition.

A kind of silly semantic fact-check that is interesting nonetheless:

 

GOP challenger John Kasich says Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland’s tax freeze amounted to a tax hike: PolitiFact Ohio

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/10/gop_challenger_john_kasich_say.html

 

So PolitiFact says it's "mostly trued" that Srickland raised taxes, because he is delaying a promised tax reduction.  That's fine to think of it that way, but anyone characterizing Strickland's actions as such is forever barred from Claiming that Obama is "raising taxes" by letting some of the Bush tax cuts lapse.

Good point.

A kind of silly semantic fact-check that is interesting nonetheless:

 

GOP challenger John Kasich says Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland’s tax freeze amounted to a tax hike: PolitiFact Ohio

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/10/gop_challenger_john_kasich_say.html

 

So PolitiFact says it's "mostly trued" that Srickland raised taxes, because he is delaying a promised tax reduction. That's fine to think of it that way, but anyone characterizing Strickland's actions as such is forever barred from Claiming that Obama is "raising taxes" by letting some of the Bush tax cuts lapse.

 

The problem is that there isn't a simple verb for "choosing in favor of higher."  So "raised" is the closest the English language allows, given space constraints.

 

Foregoing a tax cut is not "raising" taxes but is a choice in favor of taxes higher than they would be if that choice were not made.  Likewise, foregoing the extension of a tax cut is not "raising" taxes but is likewise the exercise of the authority of executive office to ensure that taxes are raised by operation of law (i.e., the triggering of a sunset provision).  Lawyers may care about that distinction; most people do not.

 

Perhaps it would be closer to accurate--though still not perfect--to say that Strickland acted against a tax cut, rather than that he raised taxes.

foregoing the extension of a tax cut is not "raising" taxes

 

Couldn't have said it better myself ;)  But.... Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Boehner, O'Donnell, Hannity, McConnell, DeMint, Breitbart, Drudge and "the American people" disagree with you.

(In response to comments from the article)

 

As someone with family that works for the state I'm sick of people saying that jobs haven't been cut.  Maybe we haven't sacrificed enough yet at the altar of small government but people have lost their jobs, others are going home with smaller paychecks (forced furlough days).  They're not growing fat off their government job; they're cancelling trips, cutting conveniences, and raiding savings just like everyone else.  Surely I'm too close to this to be completely rational, but I can't stand it when the subject gets tossed around so haphazardly.

^just you wait until the conciliation awards start being issued for negotiations on new public sector safety force contracts (which normally set the standard for all other contracts).  Many of these contract expire at the end of 2010 and the unions are going to get the shaft when it comes to compensation and benefits.  Concessions and/or layoffs will become the norm for at least the next few years.

I found this interesting:

 

"Early Voting Off to a Fast Start in Democratic Areas of Ohio"

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/early-voting-off-to-a-fas_b_763074.html

 

I realize its from the huffingtonpost and has a a political lean (just like Drudge does to the right), but it is interesting to read about democratic early voting in Cuyahoga and Franklin County.

 

Who knows what role if any this will play in the grand scheme of things in regard to the governor's race, but Strickland has to be pleased

 

foregoing the extension of a tax cut is not "raising" taxes

 

Couldn't have said it better myself ;)  But.... Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Boehner, O'Donnell, Hannity, McConnell, DeMint, Breitbart, Drudge and "the American people" disagree with you.

 

As I said ... lawyers care about the distinction; most people do not.  Most people are going to see two people making choices, one that leaves tax rates lower than the other.  The argument over what the "default" or "baseline" or whatever you want to call it just doesn't have that much significance to most people.  The end result is what matters.

^I agree with you, but the semantics matter too for campaign purposes.

 

The problem is that there isn't a simple verb for "choosing in favor of higher."  So "raised" is the closest the English language allows, given space constraints.

 

Space constraint's aren't the issue- it's a political campaign, not a classified add, geez.  The worst one can fairly say about Strickland is that, in a time of fiscal emergency, he doesn't think the state can afford to cut taxes further this year.  That is far more accurate than saying he's raising taxes, as the words are understood by most voters.

 

And by the same token, I think it's totally fair to say Obama wants to raise taxes on some.

foregoing the extension of a tax cut is not "raising" taxes

 

Couldn't have said it better myself ;) But.... Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Boehner, O'Donnell, Hannity, McConnell, DeMint, Breitbart, Drudge and "the American people" disagree with you.

 

As I said ... lawyers care about the distinction; most people do not. Most people are going to see two people making choices, one that leaves tax rates lower than the other. The argument over what the "default" or "baseline" or whatever you want to call it just doesn't have that much significance to most people. The end result is what matters.

 

The Republicans and Tea Party'ers have been demanding FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY and a BALANCED BUDGET and now that the govener has taken a step to acheive those things they bitch. Its unbelieveable. Newsflash.... You CANNOT balance the budget and cut taxes at the same time, sorry Repubs, choose one.

^Eh... I do remember Kasich saying something along the lines of his plans being to balance the budget so he could then cut taxes.  Or maybe it was vice-versa.  But, point being, he does realize and admit that you can't do both at the same time.  I'll readily admit that I truly believe Kasich is going to attack the budget like a bull.  That's his strong suit - balancing the budget.  He played a significant role in that process for the Feds when he was in Congress, so he has the resume.  I just want some more specifics on how/where he plans to cut... other than the $17 million a year he hypothetically would save us by obstructing the 3-C.  $17 that is really the equivalent of feeding a tic-tac to a whale.  And, wait a minute, would not actually be saved, but "shifted" towards roads and bridges.

 

foregoing the extension of a tax cut is not "raising" taxes

 

Couldn't have said it better myself ;) But.... Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, Boehner, O'Donnell, Hannity, McConnell, DeMint, Breitbart, Drudge and "the American people" disagree with you.

 

As I said ... lawyers care about the distinction; most people do not. Most people are going to see two people making choices, one that leaves tax rates lower than the other. The argument over what the "default" or "baseline" or whatever you want to call it just doesn't have that much significance to most people. The end result is what matters.

 

The Republicans and Tea Party'ers have been demanding FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY and a BALANCED BUDGET and now that the govener has taken a step to acheive those things they bitch. Its unbelieveable. Newsflash.... You CANNOT balance the budget and cut taxes at the same time, sorry Repubs, choose one.

 

Why not?  You simply cut spending to bring it in line with revenue.  ("Simply" is of course a matter of some perspective ...)

Not really "new" news, and hardly surprising, but worth mentioning nonetheless:

 

Murdoch says Kasich friendship influenced $1 million donation

 

When Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association — the first of two significant contributions to help elect Republicans in November — a spokesman said that the media company provided the money because of the RGA's "pro-business agenda" and because the group supports "our priorities at this most critical time for our economy."

 

Apparently, there was another reason. Murdoch — whose company owns media outlets such as Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post — told Politico on Wednesday night that the RGA gift resulted from his friendship with Republican John Kasich, a former congressman and ex-Fox News host now running for governor in Ohio.

FULL STORY: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101007/el_yblog_upshot/murdoch-says-kasich-friendship-influenced-1-mil-donation

 

Fair and Balanced

Interesting story but hardly surprising as you noted yourself.  I think most people who plan to vote for Kasich are doing so because of his pro-business stance and they're ok with that. 

 

It's easy to focus on all the downsides of a pro-business platform, but there are plenty of things that could be improved to make Ohio a more business friendly climate...  lower taxes for one...

I am thinking of voting for Strickland because of his "anti-business" stance  :|

 

But, seriously, the interesting part of that article was the source and size of the donation.  Not surprising, but veeeeery interesting.

I don't think it's so interesting at all and probably is a drop in the bucket compared to all the union donations and contributions for Pro-Stickland and Anti-Kasich ads.... 

 

Anyone able to do some quick research and find out how much the AFSCME, SEIU, Teachers, Police and Fire unions have contributed???

How does it compare to how much CNN, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, etc. have donated to the Strickland campaign?  Apples and oranges, my friend.  At least Fox is not trying to disguise it anymore.

Honestly, I wasn't aware those networks you listed had donated to Strickland.  What would their agenda be for doing so?

^"Those networks" and the NY Times did not donate to Strickland.  Which makes the point that Murdoch is Republican and that his "news channel" is Republican.

 

I am thinking of voting for Strickland because of his "anti-business" stance :|

...

LOL

^Eh... I do remember Kasich saying something along the lines of his plans being to balance the budget so he could then cut taxes.  Or maybe it was vice-versa.  But, point being, he does realize and admit that you can't do both at the same time.  I'll readily admit that I truly believe Kasich is going to attack the budget like a bull.  That's his strong suit - balancing the budget.  He played a significant role in that process for the Feds when he was in Congress, so he has the resume.  I just want some more specifics on how/where he plans to cut... other than the $17 million a year he hypothetically would save us by obstructing the 3-C.  $17 that is really the equivalent of feeding a tic-tac to a whale.  And, wait a minute, would not actually be saved, but "shifted" towards roads and bridges.

 

 

I've been doing my best to ignore politics this time around because it's been so infuriating...but, i read this...and, it's just too bad that these blatant lies go unchallenged.  That money won't be saved at all.  I wish some news source would have the balls to tell people about this BS.

^Eh... I do remember Kasich saying something along the lines of his plans being to balance the budget so he could then cut taxes. Or maybe it was vice-versa. But, point being, he does realize and admit that you can't do both at the same time. I'll readily admit that I truly believe Kasich is going to attack the budget like a bull. That's his strong suit - balancing the budget. He played a significant role in that process for the Feds when he was in Congress, so he has the resume. I just want some more specifics on how/where he plans to cut... other than the $17 million a year he hypothetically would save us by obstructing the 3-C. $17 that is really the equivalent of feeding a tic-tac to a whale. And, wait a minute, would not actually be saved, but "shifted" towards roads and bridges.

 

 

I've been doing my best to ignore politics this time around because it's been so infuriating...but, i read this...and, it's just too bad that these blatant lies go unchallenged. That money won't be saved at all. I wish some news source would have the balls to tell people about this BS.

 

Which brings me to wonder if he he won't actually kill the 3-C b/c there is no money to be saved.  It's just a campaign tool and will still get implemented "with changes" or "due to bi-partisan agreement" or some spin that makes it seem like he didn't back down from a campaign promise.

 

Wouldn't be the first time.

Which brings me to wonder if he he won't actually kill the 3-C b/c there is no money to be saved. It's just a campaign tool and will still get implemented "with changes" or "due to bi-partisan agreement" or some spin that makes it seem like he didn't back down from a campaign promise.

 

Wouldn't be the first time.

 

Sure, he's playing on the populist anger at "out of control spending" in the most cynical of ways.  it's just disgusting.

 

That said, i guess we should plan on not having rail any time soon.

We need better roads and bridges more than a slow train with few passengers.

^How much will $17 million (at most) get you in terms of roads and bridges?  Maybe a repair of one of the swing bridges in the Flats?

 

This is not an either/or proposition.  Despite what Kasich may be trying to sell you, we can't take the $400 million of federal money and redirect it to our roads/bridges.  That money will just go to another state and that shift will not be reflected one bit in YOUR tax bill.  You will still pay every penny that you would have had Kasich not obstructed the start-up.

 

Also, consider the bang-for-the-buck.  $17 million will get you a fully operational train and great (key words here, Dan) FIRST step towards HSR between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincy.  It will cause spin-off development.  It will likely have a deterring effect on the current 'brain drain' (the great majority of educated young people support the train).  Killing the project will have the opposite effect.... but, hey, at least they might be able to add an extra lane to the 271 express lanes between the Chagrin Blvd and Cedar/Brainard exits.

We need better roads and bridges more than a slow train with few passengers.

 

And people like you need to get it through your head that the money set aside by the federal government can't just be automatically transferred to road and highway construction. So if we let Kasich have his way, we'll turn down the federal funds for the 3C, won't get an upstart rail system that will lay the foundation for future expansion and since that money could only be used for that, another city will have it's rail service benefitted. Meanwhile, we now have no new rail service and we STILL have no money to add to the highway fund.

 

Tea Party for the win!

We need better roads and bridges more than a slow train with few passengers.

 

We already have ample roads and bridges, and as the others have said, the money for rail is earmarked for a specific use; it cannot be taken and then repurposed to other projects.  It would employ a lot of construction workers, and, because it's a genuine infrastructure investment, it would build something that lasts.  That stands in stark contrast to the entitlement boosts and local government bailouts that took up the bulk of the stimulus money.

We need better roads and bridges more than a slow train with few passengers.

 

We already have ample roads and bridges, and as the others have said, the money for rail is earmarked for a specific use; it cannot be taken and then repurposed to other projects.  It would employ a lot of construction workers, and, because it's a genuine infrastructure investment, it would build something that lasts.  That stands in stark contrast to the entitlement boosts and local government bailouts that took up the bulk of the other half of the stimulus money that wasn't spent on tax cuts.

 

Right on. 

The latest Quinnipac Poll shows Kasich out ahead.  Looks pretty good for him this close to the election. 

 

I guess we'll soon see if he is serious about deep-sixing 3C.

The federal government doesnt have this money either.  Its about time somebody stands up and refuses to take it.

The federal government doesnt have this money either. Its about time somebody stands up and refuses to take it.

 

The question isn't whether or not we have the money, it's whether or not it provides the best return on investment or best increases our quality of life. Clearly you and him both don't understand this concept. I mean, after all, you're supporting a guy who bashed on the Third Frontier - probably one of the most successful and synergistic tools for economic development is the history of Ohio. Are we supposed to consider Kasich some sort of hero for standing up to a grant? You think he would stand up against other forms of incentives that many people would say we "can't afford" like deregulation or tax breaks for his friends? It amazes me how old yet naive you are about the similarity in intentions between constituents of these two political parties. You're letting Fox News and e-mails from the higher-ups at P&G brainwash you. Stop it! Stop it now before it's too late!

I hope Kasich does win just out of curiosity alone. After he dissolves the Dept. of Development and possibly changes who has control over Third Frontier projects, I can't wait to find out his ties to every appointed board member or employee after restructuring.

What does Ohio's next governor need to do?

 

I'd say balance the budget without raising taxes.  And make the state suck less in general.

What does Ohio's next governor need to do?

 

I'd say balance the budget without raising taxes.  And make the state suck less in general.

 

About as specific as Kasich's campaign.

I hope Kasich does win just out of curiosity alone. After he dissolves the Dept. of Development and possibly changes who has control over Third Frontier projects, I can't wait to find out his ties to every appointed board member or employee after restructuring.

Like Lehman Brothers?

What does Ohio's next governor need to do?

 

I'd say balance the budget without raising taxes. And make the state suck less in general.

Part one is simply impossible unless they discover lots more oil under the state. And the 3C RR would be a great first step.

What does Ohio's next governor need to do?

 

I'd say balance the budget without raising taxes.  And make the state suck less in general.

Part one is simply impossible unless they discover lots more oil under the state. And the 3C RR would be a great first step.

 

It's quite financially possible.  Depending on how the constellations of power align, it may or may not be politically feasible, but there is sufficient hostility to increased taxes at the moment that it might be.  I still tend to doubt it, but I wouldn't write it off the table just yet.

I'm voting for Strickland. Not excited about it, but I am discouraged by Kasich's lack of specific, realistic plans to back up his rhetoric. Strickland has a record, not a great one, but I find it difficult to blame him for a recession caused by runaway deregulation in the finance sector or the pre-existing problem with the change from an industrial base to an information economy. I also find most of his rhetoric about the 3C rail to be highly misleading; yes, the train is 'slow' compared to real high-speed trains, but the plan is also incremental and will work towards faster trains down the line. To say 'that's not good enough' is one thing, to imply that all it is is a slow train and that the money is just sitting there for us to 'take' or 'send back' is short-sighted. We don't have to like how Washington works, but the governor of Ohio isn't going to do much to change DC culture.

From Politifact Ohio -

 

We rate Kasich’s claim that  "Ted Strickland destroyed Ohio jobs when he busted the budget" as False.

 

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2010/oct/19/john-kasich/kasich-ad-puts-all-states-budget-woes-job-loses-st/

The federal government doesnt have this money either.  Its about time somebody stands up and refuses to take it.

 

But that's not what's happening.  If we don't take the money, it will be spent elsewhere.  Either you are minimally observant, intellectually dishonest, or both.

The federal government doesnt have this money either. Its about time somebody stands up and refuses to take it.

 

But that's not what's happening. If we don't take the money, it will be spent elsewhere. Either you are minimally observant, intellectually dishonest, or both.

 

That's a common assertion. But that $400 million might not go to some other state. It could get slashed from the federal budget come January, right?  I could see this happening especially if Ohio sent the money back to a deficit-weary Congress.

The federal government doesnt have this money either. Its about time somebody stands up and refuses to take it.

 

But that's not what's happening. If we don't take the money, it will be spent elsewhere. Either you are minimally observant, intellectually dishonest, or both.

 

 

Insults aside, some people are still willing to stand up for their principles.  As your mother might have said, "If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?"

Tell us more about the priciples of someone who never apologized for making money by selling toxic assets to Ohians who went bankrupt. Get the hell out of here  :roll:

Tell us more about the priciples of someone who never apologized for making money by selling toxic assets to Ohians who went bankrupt. Get the hell out of here   :roll:

 

Do we even know what Kasich sold as an investment banker, ever?  Did he sell collateralized debt obligations of any kind (mortgage-backed securities or anything related)?  I'd actually be curious.  I find it kind of funny that people play up his financial expertise without getting into specifics of what his "expertise" actually is.  Can anyone explain to me what exactly he did for Lehman?  It should be possible to articulate that without revealing confidential client information.  I can certainly give a good pitch for my own capabilities as a lawyer without divulging confidential client information.  Ask yourself this: If you had a lot of money, and someone claiming to be a financial expert pitched themselves to you the way Kasich has been pitching himself to Ohio, would you enter into a relationship with him (or her)?

 

I would bet that there is not a single bankrupt consumer in the entire state that actually owns a toxic asset sold by John Kasich.

 

If I had to make a guess, I would guess that Kasich did *not* sell mortgage-backed securities, particularly not to Ohioans.  What might be more accurate to say is that Lehman, along with many other Wall Street banks, created the market for them, which allowed actual predatory lenders and fly-by-night mortgage brokers in Ohio to sell their notes and therefore lend with reckless abandon, profiting more off the fees than from the income stream from the notes.

CNN Poll Says:

 

Strickland ahead by 2 points.  48%-46%

 

Margin of error 2.5

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101020/NEWS0108/10210343/Poll-Strickland-Kasich-about-even

^ Odd, most respectable polls have Kasich up by quite a bit, even ones from earlier this week.  I wonder how CNN got such a different result.

There are two issue with polls right now that I think are accounting for these swings:

 

1. Likely voter models (Strickland has been doing better in RV polls, Kaisch in LV)

2. Cell phone undersampling

If I had to make a guess, I would guess that Kasich did *not* sell mortgage-backed securities, particularly not to Ohioans.  What might be more accurate to say is that Lehman, along with many other Wall Street banks, created the market for them, which allowed actual predatory lenders and fly-by-night mortgage brokers in Ohio to sell their notes and therefore lend with reckless abandon, profiting more off the fees than from the income stream from the notes.

 

I agree with your point about Kasich- I haven't seen anything particularly damning about his time or business at Lehman nor do I consider it any kind of plus.

 

But you're a little too quick to absolve Lehman.  The banks were the sponsors and chief marketers of the private label (almost all subrime) MBS and CDO deals.  They created and sold the products, they were not mere intermediaries.  They had a completely symbiotic relationship with the subprime originators.  If you think the financial industry bears any responsibility, banks like Lehman are central to it.  But again, I've seen nothing tying Kasich to this or any other part of Lehman's worst business.

The Kasich-Lehman connection has little influence over my views.  Without more than a tangential connection between Kasich and any foul Lehman committed, I consider it pure campaign fodder.