Press Release: State rep Terry Boose op/ed on Strickland’s State of the State speech

Editor’s note: Terry Boose represents the 58th Ohio House District, which includes Huron County and large portions of Lorain and Seneca counties.

Representative Terry Boose Reacts to Governor’s State of the State

Governor gives lip service to job creation but has no plan to reform Ohio’s Government or support job creation.

Columbus – Following Governor Strickland’s State of the State address, Representative Terry Boose (R-Norwalk) delivered the following remarks:

“ I was glad to hear that the governor is finally talking about Jobs.  Huron County’s unemployment is unacceptable at 15 percent and I find it very unfortunate that the governor has wasted the General Assembly’s time this last year trying to push through projects that we cannot afford, such as the not-so high speed passenger rail, an education plan that cuts funding to local school districts while creating new mandate taxes, and reliance upon racetrack slots to patch up long-term budget problems.

“During my first year in the Ohio House, I along with many of my colleagues have promoted long-term solutions that will get Ohioans working again in the Future of Ohio Jobs Package, such as tax credits for businesses that hire unemployed workers, tax credits for college graduates who chose to stay in Ohio, and a bill that tracks the success of government job placement programs.  Unfortunately, neither the governor or his supporters in the legislature have given us the opportunity to make these job creation tools work for the unemployed workers in Huron, Lorain, and Seneca counties.  In fact, they haven’t even given us the opportunity to vote on them.  If the governor is serious about creating jobs and working in a bipartisan manner, he will consider the Future Of Ohio Jobs Plan.”

In search of Ellie Light

Plain Dealer journalist Sabrina Eaton is on the trail of Ellie Light.  I highly recommend this story and this story.  You have to give credit to Sabrina Eaton for checking her sources.

ORP pushing Yost around to clear AG primary for Mike DeWine

With a heavy-handed top-down approach, the ORP wants to force-feed former U.S. Senator Mike DeWine to you as the GOP nominee for Ohio Attorney General.

Yes, this is the former U.S. Senator who lost to a liberal Democrat, Sherrod Brown, in 2006.  For the record, neither I nor my family members voted for DeWine in the GOP primary of 2006.  William Pierce and David Smith were both more palatable than DeWine.

In the general election for U.S. Senate in 2006, yes, we voted for DeWine and not Sherrod Brown.

This year, though, if Mike DeWine is the GOP nominee, my family members will be voting for Richard Cordray. Richard Cordray.  Let me say that again, because I know that there are some bloggers with a long memory, especially on the left side of the aisle that know I’ve taken jabs at Richard Cordray in the past.  Richard Cordray.

If David Yost, who has served as Delaware County Prosecutor, is on the GOP primary ballot, my family will be voting for Yost.  If Yost is the GOP nominee for AG in the fall, my family will support Yost.

The Republican Party of a few Ohio counties have made endorsements in the AG race already.  So far, those counties have all weighed in on the side of David Yost, including Huron County’s GOP.  None have endorsed DeWine.  Kevin DeWine, a cousin of Mike DeWine, is the chair of the Ohio Republican Party, and it is readily apparent that he is his cousin’s crony because he is doing everything he can to muscle David Yost out of the GOP primary for AG to clear the way for Mike DeWine to be unopposed in the primary.

But let me say it again, if Mike DeWine is the nominee, my family will be voting for Richard Cordray.  I know this because I’ve already had this discussion with my family numerous times.

Boy, will I be eating a lot of crow if I’m endorsing Richard Cordray for AG this fall, but better to eat crow than to vote for Mike DeWine as AG.

And here’s a simple message to Mike DeWine so that he understands at least one principle:  A candidate’s views on the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are, indeed, relevant to making a choice about who should be our next Ohio Attorney General.  Sorry, but this is an issue that cannot be swept under the rug or overlooked in an AG race.

Besides the cronyism on full display by ORP chair Kevin DeWine, I suspect that other Washington DC insiders, like Rob Portman and John Kasich, may be complicit in the maneuverings that blocked Mary Taylor from running for U.S. Senate, or even Ohio Auditor, in order to bait a trap for David Yost (who has also served as a Delaware County Auditor) to abandon the Attorney General race and place him in the Ohio Auditor race.

When it comes to the Ohio Auditor race, the ORP dropped the ball.  There was a vacuum for the space of a few days.  The vacuum can’t remain empty.  So Seth Morgan, currently a state rep, declared his candidacy for Ohio Auditor.  The most persuasive argument Mary Taylor made during her campaign for Ohio Auditor in 2006, was that she was eminently qualified for the job, because she was an actual CPA.  Seth Morgan is also a CPA, and, though he got a late start due to Kasich’s meddling, Morgan can tout that credential as the trump card in the race against the Democrat nominee.

So, to the ORP, don’t bother with recruiting an Auditor candidate now.  That problem has already been taken care of.  You had the chance, but you fumbled the ball, and Seth Morgan recovered it.

If Seth Morgan and David Yost face off in a primary for Auditor, I will be endorsing Seth Morgan for Auditor.  The CPA credential is a persuasive one.  But I’d also have to endorse Morgan to punish the ham-handedness of the ORP in trying to pull everyone’s strings.

Am I a lone voice in the wilderness?  A solitary blogger in pajamas?  According to the counties that endorsed so far for AG, no, I’m not alone.  My views on this matter are widely held among the grassroots.  Furthermore, for your reading pleasure, I’d like to plug the following blog articles:

At Weapons of Mass DiscussionThe Fight for the Very Soul of the ORP

At BizzyBlogKevin DeWine, Screwing Up A Perfectly Perfect Storm . . .

At Buckeye Firearms Association: Ohio GOP chair Kevin DeWine attempts to clear path for anti-gun cousin Mike’s return to power

At From the Rust Belt, three posts:  1) Kevin DeWine: Let’s Snatch Defeat From the Jaws of Victory; 2) An Establishment Blog Sides With . . . The Establishment; and 3) Ohio Rages Against the Machine

Some say it would take a bozo of a GOP chair to screw up statewide elections this time around.  We may just have a bozo on our hands.  We shall see.

It’s about the jobs, Mr. President

While at Lorain County Community College on Friday, January 22, 2010, Mr. President, you began with shout-outs to your fellow Democrat politicians who’ve been in office for years making swell promises but who never really deliver the goods.  Nevertheless, the crowd cheered as you announced each name: Governor Ted Strickland, Senator Sherrod Brown, Representative Marcy Kaptur, and Representative Betty Sutton; and with that, the lovefest ensued.

It’s interesting that you welcomed the opportunity to travel to Ohio because you sometimes feel like living in Washington DC is like living in a bubble.  Really, Mr. President?  Funny, how I just blogged about the Beltway cocoon just yesterday.  If you find just the first year in the White House insulating after not even serving a full term as a Senator, then imagine how out of touch the multi-term Beltway creatures are.  So, perhaps voting out Sherrod Brown, Marcy Kaptur, and Betty Sutton would be a good thing for voters to do . . . this year, in the case of Kaptur and Sutton.  We’ll deal with Sherrod in 2012.  And if you really want to burst out of your bubble, Mr. President, you might as well go talk to those people who held a Tea Party nearby.  They want to help you burst that bubble in the worst way.

After your intros and warmups, your speech began:

“I walked into office a year ago in the middle of a raging economic storm that was wreaking devastation on your town and communities everywhere.  We had to take some very difficult steps to deal with that mess to stave off an even greater economic catastrophe.  We had to stabilize the financial system, which, given the role of the big banks in creating this mess, was a pretty tough pill to swallow.  I knew it would be unpopular, and rightly so, but I also knew that we had to do it because if they went down, your local banks would have gone down, and if the financial system went down, it would have taken the entire economy and millions more families and businesses with it.  We would have been looking at a second Great Depression.”

Personally, Mr. President, I think we’re looking at a second Great Depression, no matter what.  We’re Americans, though, and we’re tough enough to weather this storm as long as there’s a rainbow on the other side.  Artificially trying to stave it off with interventions like bailouts and Congressional spending binges, I believe, will only leave us in a holding pattern as the storm batters us and batters us.  To eventually correct course, we needed the chief culprits to fail.  Bailing out the financial institutions only enables those culprits to stay in their positions and continue to wreak the havoc that they’ve been wreaking.  It’s hypocritical for you and your political allies, Mr. President, to pout and scold over the bloated compensation packages of Wall Street executives.  Why do they even have jobs?  Because you bailed them out.  You are the enablers.  If their companies failed, they would have been out of work at least temporarily, their compensation bubbles would have burst, and the marketplace would have readjusted their compensation packages when they finally landed new employment.  You, and Mr. Geithner, and, before you, President Bush, and Mr. Paulson, and all the members of Congress have perpetuated the ills of the financial sector for the foreseeable future because you bailed them out.  Surely, as you say, if they fell, other dominoes would have fallen.  Understood.  But America is like a phoenix.  Something new always emerges from the ashes.  Unfortunately, we haven’t reached that stage.  Nothing newer, more efficient, and more advanced can emerge because the old guard still wields the power, propped up by the bailouts.

I’ve campaigned in Lorain County back in 2002 and 2004, and the topic of jobs was the number one issue on the minds of voters back then, and it’s been the number one issue going back even further than that, so, you can be sure, Mr. President, that, on a day like today, when Ohio’s unemployment is announced to be 10.9%, it’s still the number one issue.

So as you turned your focus to talking about creating jobs, the crowd was applauding frequently and loudly.  Sherrod Brown has made those same kinds of speeches to these same people with much the same content year after year after year after year.  It works like a charm.  It’s what the voters always love to hear.

Yet in all the years that Sherrod Brown has represented Lorain County in elected office, do you think that the bright tomorrow he always speaks of has ever arrived?  No.  It never materializes.

Why do you think that is?

Do you think it might be due to the fact that the federal government can’t stop micro-managing the economy, demanding that the economy meet benchmarks of social justice set by the arbiters of what’s politically correct?  Do you think that the federal government might be devouring too big a chunk of the nation’s GDP?  Just as the laws of physics, such as the law of gravity, cannot be suspended by politically willing them to, neither can the laws governing economics be suspended according to whim.  For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Helping unqualified borrowers purchase homes through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may seem politically expedient, but the piper eventually must be paid.

As you can see, unemployment is not an economic condition that can be corrected in isolation from other economic conditions.  What is needed is a holistic approach that allows for purging of what doesn’t work and emerging of what will work.  Oh, except that the bailouts prevented purging just as surely as they prevent emerging.

Those who stood to pose questions were pretty narrowly focused on employment, weren’t they?  See, I told you jobs has been the number one issue in Lorain County for years.  Virtually every single question from the audience touched on employment in one way or another.

Pundits, and even other Capitol Hill politicians, have been saying that your initial push as President should have been all about jobs.  There would have been more goodwill that could have given you leverage for tackling the health care reform and environmental issues.  Do you see that they were instinctively right?  Isn’t something job related on the mind of virtually every one you called upon, Mr. President?

The special election in Massachusetts gave you an opportunity to take a break from the health care reform issue.  Mr. President, you, yourself, said that health care reform should not be rushed through before Scott Brown is seated in the U.S. Senate.  This stop in Elyria was supposed to be the second stop, after Allentown, Pennsylvania, of a tour about reviving the economy and boosting employment.

But you couldn’t let go of the health care reform issue for even one day, could you, Mr. President?  Even after the Q & A was all about jobs and jobs and jobs, you had to deliver a second town hall speech.  You looked pained that no one had asked you a question to serve as a launching pad to discourse at length on health care reform.  Did you notice any difference in the audience response to your second speech when compared to your first speech?  I did.  Applause was not as frequent and not as raucous.  I think perhaps some of the audience members were wishing for a brief respite from the banter about health care reform and were refreshed to hear you talk about jobs.  Unfortunately, you didn’t grant them much of a respite at all, did you?

But I think the audience, even among those that loved you the most, Mr. President, were giving you hints and clues about where the most productive political pursuits lie:  healing the economy, not through artificial interventions, but letting the axe fall where it needs to (including the federal budget), letting the chips fall where they may, and jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.

More Obama news made in Lorain County

To access a clearinghouse, of sorts, of news and some blog articles about President Obama’s visit to Lorain County, Ohio, on 1/22/2010, click over to this special section commemorating the occasion provided by

In Sandusky on 1/30/2010: Meet 2 Congressional candidates

More potential candidates are entering races for Congress.  In Ohio’s 9th Congressional District in 2008, you may recall that incumbent Democrat Marcy Kaptur was opposed by Bradley Leavitt, but not many really had the opportunity to see Mr. Leavitt, as Kaptur dominated media attention.

I received this head’s up from Maggie Thurber of Thurber’s Thoughts:

Announcing a new Meetup for The Children of Liberty!

What: Citizens Town Hall Meeting

When: Saturday, January 30, 2010 2:00 PM

Lyman Harbor Waterfront Banquet Hall/Restaurant
1615 First Street
Sandusky, OH 44870

We have joined with our fellow patriot groups to put on a town hall meeting to meet the candidates. If you are ready to work to change congress in 2010 and stand up for our constitutional principles, come to this town hall meeting. Speaking at the meeting will are Jack Smith and Rich Iott both running for District 9. This is your chance to ask them the questions the Media won’t. IF you are a candidate and wish to speak at this event you need to pre-register with Jeff Lydy at

Learn more here:

Thurber also has blog posts about these two candidates that are gunning for the people’s seat currently held by Rep. Marcy Kaptur.

Rich Iott entry is here.

Jack Smith entry is here.

[UPDATE] Tea Party news: “Free Speech Area?”

If you clicked the links to my prior brief posts about MSM coverage of the Tea Party in Lorain County held while Obama’s town hall was in progress, you may have noticed something odd.  A portion of the campus at Lorain County Community College was designated as the “free speech area,” where protesters were welcome to rally.

From this article by Cindy Leise of Elyria’s Chronicle-Telegram, it seems that the “free speech area” was probably not in a prime location that had a high degree of visibility among passers-by.

Just a handful of protestors gathered at the designated “Free Speech” area on the outskirts of campus near a parking area.

Most preferred being near the Abbe Road commercial area, where they spoke to shoppers and proudly showed off signs such as “Thank You Mass” and “No Recovery Here.”

Protesters shrugging off the “free speech area” and lingering along heavily traveled Abbe Road . . hmm . . . what do you think about that?  Probably a smart move that increased the Tea Party’s visibility.

Of course, in the United States of America that I’m accustomed to, the whole nation is a “free speech area.”

[UPDATE 1/23/2010] This poster reads, “Speech can segregate you from everyone,” and, apparently, the President and his entourage wanted to segregate themselves from the speech of the Tea Party, hence the “free speech area.”


Chris Ritchey, a former student of Lorain County Community College, is the creator of this poster.  It is with great pride that I reprint it here with the permission of his mother, Loraine Ritchey.  Chris was taken from our midst by the H1N1 virus on December 3, 2009, while he was trying to recover from Hodgkins Lymphoma.  A loving tribute to his legacy may be found on Loraine’s blog.

Loraine shared this piece of information about Chris with me:

“Yes, he did leave a legacy of wit and standing up for freedom . . . actually, I will be exploring that aspect of him as time goes on.”

Personally, I look forward to reading about it.  Thanks so much for sharing.

Smackdown on women at Ford

During the Question and Answer session that was sandwiched between an Obama speech on jobs and an Obama speech on health care reform, a woman who grew up in a family where Ford put the food on the table asked about redress of sexist issues in the workplace.

President Obama’s response had to do with equal pay for equal work regardless of gender, which, I don’t believe was at the heart of the woman’s concerns.  President Obama had already addressed gender equity in the workplace during his jobs speech, I’m sure the woman heard that message, and I don’t think she was asking to have the President repeat himself.  The union contract would ensure equal pay for equal work, too, so I doubt that’s what the questioner was driving at.

I have a couple of things in common with the woman who posed the question, as I grew up in a UAW household where Ford put food on the table.  Like her, there was a season when I was a Ford worker, too.  I can’t know exactly what the woman’s concerns are, but I know what I observed at Ford, and perhaps some of it may apply to what that woman and her mother experienced.

If you’ve been a reader of my blog for some time, you may have read my post titled, “Smackdown on women in Sandusky.”  To be sure, I doubt this woman’s family hails from Sandusky, so I can’t be sure that the same conditions apply, but let me just repeat just what kind of environment I was talking about in that post:

In Sandusky, Ohio, one doesn’t have to sift through nuance and subltety to find instances of sexism.  No.  In Sandusky, the Good Old Boys’ tastes in misogyny trend more toward sexism that’s blatant and overt.  Perhaps that’s why I couldn’t discern the nuances that JMZ expounded upon, because I was raised in an environment of stark contrasts.

When I make mention of a smackdown on women in Sandusky in the title of this blog entry, I’m not talking about a one-time event.  The “S” in “Smackdown” in the title is capitalized only because it is the first word in the title, not because it’s a proper noun signifying a singular event.  No . . . smackdown of women by the Good Old Boys happens in Sandusky every day of every year.  It is commonplace.  So, it is “smackdown” with a lower-case “s” that I’m writing about here.  Though I hope someday to illustrate the point with my own Sandusky workplace observations, this blog entry will be lengthy enough just to tell the tale of the woman who was once Sandusky’s police chief, Kim Nuesse.

I’ve worked at many, many places for many, many employers at many, many jobs during my adult life.  How many?  I think I counted 30 different jobs.  It seems every little dip in the economy affects me and sends me scrambling to latch on to something else.  But of all those workplaces, I believe the most rampant, blatant, overt sexism I ever witnessed was at Ford.

In other workplaces, people get fired for sexual harassment, and they draw a very clear line.  You can get fired, maybe, at Ford for sexual harassment, and no clear line was drawn.  Men, even married men, chase skirts and sometimes impregnate female co-workers, sometimes even married ones.  Those men on the most solid footing with union officials are the ones most likely to not fear any consequences.

In the woman’s question to Obama about what to do about workplace sexism, she said that attorneys wouldn’t take up the matter.  This, to me, is a clue that the union is complicit.  The union is supposed to represent the worker’s interests in relation to working conditions at Ford.  Her first attempt to redress of wrongs would be through negotiations with her union reps.  That she’s consulted attorneys means that she’s not getting results through the union.  If, for example, she were to lodge a complaint about sexual harassment, and a man who was prominent in the union was involved, the union would most likely neglect to follow through.  Lawyers would probably say that if the woman wants to sue Ford, she’d also have to sue the union as well, because both have a responsibility, and it has to be proven, with evidence, that both have failed in their respective responsibilities in order to make a case in court.  If you lodge a complaint, and the union rep logs the complaint, and documents that the matter was brought before management, how do you prove that they didn’t do their job to redress the wrong?  The union might say, “We’re still working on it.  Management is dragging their feet.”  So proof can be hard to come by, especially if there have been backroom deals between the union and management where favors are owed for covering each others’ hind ends.

But sexual harassment is just the tip of the iceberg.  There are other complaints that I’ve also seen women’s job opportunities curtailed by concerted efforts by male management and male union officials.  Certain departments within a factory may be clubhouses of “boys only–no girls allowed.”  The hiring of women in Ford factories was just a trickle before the late 70’s.  This means that it’s likely that a bunch of men have more seniority than even the most senior woman in the factory.  If an opening occurs in a “boys only” department, and a woman bids on it, there may be a concerted effort to recruit a man with more seniority than that woman to sign the bid sheet.  If a man with more seniority can’t be found, that doesn’t mean gender integration is inevitable, because all of a sudden, management might say “Oops, that was a mistake to put a bid sheet out.  There really isn’t an opening in that department.  The department is fully staffed.”  (Ooh, goody, overtime is available in the short run).  So that bid sheet was useless.  A number of days may then be allowed to elapse so that the bid rights of those that signed that particular bid sheet have expired, and, voila, an opening has mysteriously appeared in that department again, and the bidding restarts back at square one.  Since all of this is according to contract, there’s really no way for attorneys to tackle such a dilemma, even though sexist discrimination may have been a motive for all that maneuvering.   For the men who have nothing to fear from the union or management, outright intimidation may be used to discourage women from bidding into certain departments.

Among the job opportunities in a Ford factory where men exhibit the most territorial behavior are the skilled trades.  Skilled trades require more training.  Skilled trades have a higher degree of risk to a person’s safety.  Skilled trades may require more muscle to accomplish assigned tasks.  Mostly, though, skilled trades pay better that production work.   The better pay and the opportunity to use one’s mind and do work that’s less routine are factors that prompt workers to gravitate toward skilled trades opportunities.

Openings in skilled trades are filled mostly in two ways:  1) Hire someone that’s already a journeyman. 2) Train someone through an apprenticeship until they become a journeyman.

The easiest way to play keep away is to hire someone that’s already a journeyman, because management and the union have the best opportunity to pick and choose without strings attached.  I’ve known instances of men hired off the street who weren’t really journeyman, but connections with union heads and management permitted a farce to be perpetrated where the applicants credentials were fudged.  “Fudged” is putting it mildly.  Because they really weren’t qualified, they really aren’t all that productive, (tasks take longer–ooh! opportunity for overtime!), but at least gender integration was averted.

For apprenticeship programs, there are quite a few requirements that the union and management must meet in selecting apprentices, so it’s a little harder to game the system, but there are still loopholes for gaming it.  It used to be that the highest scores on an aptitude test were the ones accepted into the apprenticeship program.  At first, it was mostly men who worked in the factory, so it would mostly be men who took the test, and it would mostly be men who got the highest scores.  As more women joined the factory workforce, the number of women taking the test started to climb, and the likelihood of a woman getting a high score was increasing.  Often, outright intimidation is used to suppress the number of women taking the test.  Once the tests have been scored, and the candidates for apprenticeship are ranked, apprentices are added as openings become available.  If the top female apprenticeship candidate was ranked 10th on the list, you might see just four or five apprenticeship opportunities open up before eligibility expires and the test has to be administered again.  Or maybe just six or seven apprentices added.  Or maybe just eight or nine.  Ten or eleven?  Nah! Not likely this time around, because a woman ranked 10th.  The dearth of females in the skilled trades does not go unnoticed, however, so it was surmised that perhaps ranking apprenticeship candidates based on test scores, alone, was unfair to women and minorities.  Instead of taking the highest scores, why not take all those with passing scores, and then use seniority to rank the candidates?  That way, as long as a woman or minority can meet the MINIMUM requirements, as evidenced by a passing score, they can get a crack at a skilled trades job.  It should be fairly easy to guess how the new ranking method allowed more gaming of the system than the old:  It’s based on seniority!  Even the most senior women have less seniority than boatloads of men!  The new ranking system provided an escape hatch when the old ranking system, based on high scores, was leading to the inevitability of gender integration in the skilled trades.

But even if a female apprentice is added, her progress in the skilled trades may still be fraught with challenges.  Workers can be dropped from apprenticeships if progress is documented to be unsatisfactory.  Without proper vigilance by someone willing to blow the whistle, documentation of unsatisfactory progress can be manufactured.  Mentors and department heads can try to sabotage her progress during her rotation through the various departments of the plant.  Intimidation is often resorted to in order to pressure the female apprentice to drop out of the apprenticeship program.  Even if she completes the apprenticeship and becomes a journeyman, when she bids to a department that happens to be a clubhouse of the good old boys, she can find herself subjected to the same shenanigans that female production workers can experience when bidding.

Only the intimidation, the false documentation, and the harassment are in violation of the contract.  The rest of the obstacles that women may face are part and parcel of the contract, and a lawyer wouldn’t know where to begin to fight it.

I don’t know what circumstances that woman or her mother faced at Ford because she couldn’t really elaborate within the town hall format, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it had something to do with what I’ve mentioned in this blog post.

[UPDATE] Kudos to Plain Dealer for better Tea Party coverage

In contrast to the MJ’s reporting with an ugly slant, the Plain Dealer‘s Thomas Feran presents a more complete portrait of the 300 or so Tea Partiers at LCCC.

I’d be curious to learn other estimates of the people count.

[UPDATE 1/23/2010] Here’s another excellent article by Thomas Feran about the stalwarts who stayed all day to give Obama a defiant send-off.

Tea Partiers had their say on video, posted by David I. Anderson on the PD website.  Check it out.  It’ll put a smile on your face.

Irresponsible reporting by Morning Journal in relation to Obama visit and Tea Party

Who does Lorain’s Morning Journal hire as reporters?  I couldn’t find a byline for this story to locate the name of the person who wrote it.

Here’s the objectionable excerpt:

Just a few minutes before the north gates of the LCCC are set to close, protesters and self-proclaimed teabaggers are starting to come into the free speech area. Located as far from the president as possible, their signs read “Abortion is murder” and “Jesus is pro life.”

“Teabaggers” is a profane derogatory slur that refers to a sexual act.  Those who attend Tea Parties do not proclaim themselves to be “teabaggers.”  It’s the bloggers and vile lefty pundits like Keith Olbermann who denigrate those who attend Tea Parties with that disparaging label.

Is that a representative sample of Tea Party signs that only address the pro-life cause?  The signs are silent about bailouts, Obamacare, and cap-and-trade?

What an amateur hatchet job masquerading as MSM journalism.  And to think this doesn’t even appear on the Op/Ed page, but is being reported as real news.

In DC on 9/14/09: The Beltway Cocoon

Even though Scott Brown won the U.S. Senate special election in Massachusetts, do you really think Capitol Hill is listening?  If my pilgrimage to Washington DC in September 2009 is any indication, I doubt it.

I’ve shown you the pictures I took at the 9/12 rally here and here.  But I haven’t told the bitter story of my visits to the DC offices of Senator George Voinovich (R-OH), Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), and Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) . . .

Until now.

Read the rest of this entry »

Invest Elyria

The ever-resourceful Brandon Rutherford, involved Elyria resident, endorsed by Buckeye RINO for Elyria City Council last fall, but not victorious on Election Day, is still reaching out to the Elyria community to devise ways to improve the city through ordinary grassroots efforts.  If you’re an Elyrian, you can be involved, too.  Check out the new “Invest Elyria” website, and you’ll learn about its purposes, proposals, and participation.  I have a feeling this is an effort that Buckeye RINO will revisit from time to time.  Best of wishes to all those involved with Invest Elyria from Buckeye RINO.

[UPDATE] Wanna Tea Party during Obama’s visit to Lorain County on Friday?

If you’ve missed some opportunities to attend Tea Parties on Capitol Hill in DC because it was so far away, then perhaps you’d like to be at a Tea Party closer to home.

If you’ve missed some opportunities to show your true genius in designing your own homemade protest signs and banners, January 22, 2010 (this Friday) might be a fortuitous occasion.  Who knows?  Perhaps someone in the Presidential motorcade might even spot your sign.

Lorain County Community College is on the outskirts of Elyria, and it’s a venue where President Obama will make an appearance on Friday, though I’m not sure of the exact time of the President’s appearance.

For the Tea Party, however, you’re welcome to stay the whole day.  You can pack food, if you like, but there are also plenty of fast food joints and other restaurants just down the road, to the north of the campus.  I have no idea what the weather forecast is, but be prepared for the outdoor conditions.

Mike Hellyar of the Lorain North Shore Patriots is designated as the organizer of the rally.  The plan for Tea Party attendees is to park at Elyria’s Hilltop Park Cobblestone.  It’s a little bit of a walk to the LCCC campus from there.  If by chance there’s no available parking at the park or at the campus, there is a shopping center called Cobblestone on the same road (State Route 301–also known as Abbe Road) as the campus.  State Route 301 is a heavily traveled thoroughfare, so as you walk along the way, plenty of motorists will have an opportunity to see your signs at virtually any time during daylight hours (just be careful not to get run over if you have to cross any intersections).

Driving-wise, LCCC is not that far from an interchange with I-90.  If traveling from Cleveland or other points east, you’d make a left off of the exit ramp onto State Route 254, and then make a right on State Route 301.  If traveling from Sandusky or other points west, you’d make a right off the exit ramp onto State Route 254 and then make a right on State Route 301.

You’ll see the Cobblestone shopping plaza on your right hand side fairly soon after turning on to SR 301 (Abbe Road).  The LCCC campus will be further south, along the left hand side of the road.  The sign at the entrance of campus is clearly visible.

I’ve always accessed Hilltop Park from Gulf Road (roughly parallel to Abbe, but further west), but it’s not the only access point, but the park stretches over to Abbe Road and up to Burns Road.  There is an intersection with Burns Road just south, beyond the LCCC campus, along Abbe Road.  Hilltop Park lies a little further south, just beyond that Abbe-Burns intersection, on the right hand side.


If you feel your clever banner didn’t get enough exposure to viewers during the Tea Party, you might consider sending me a photograph of it, snapped on the LCCC grounds, and I’ll consider posting it here on Buckeye RINO.

Let the President know what you REALLY think about the bailouts, cap and trade, and Obamacare.

[UPDATE 1/20/2010] Two more links to help you get there and know what’s going on:

Cleveland Tea Party Patriots

Lorain NorthShore Patriots

[UPDATE] The hubris of Kasich

I’m not at all enamored with Steve Stivers as a candidate for Ohio’s 15th Congressional District.  But I sure wish he was in Congress right now instead of Mary Jo Kilroy, who has amassed a voting record I absolutely deplore.  Stivers was edged out by Kilroy by less than one percentage point of the total vote count in the 2008 elections for the 15th Congressional seat.

Less than one percentage point.

Guess what?  In that same Congressional race, there was a write-in candidate, Travis Casper, who captured all of 6 votes.  No big deal.

But guess what else?  In that same Congressional race, there was an independent, Don Eckhart, that snagged over 4 percent of the vote.  Who knows . . . maybe he garnered some votes from people who would have left their ballot blank rather than vote for Stivers or Kilroy.  Then again, maybe not.  Or, maybe those votes would have been split 50/50 between Stivers and Kilroy.  Who knows?

But, again, guess what else?  In that same Congressional race, Mark Noble, a Libertarian, captured close to 5% of the vote.  Since Kilroy, by her voting record, stands for big, expensive, intrusive government, and Libertarians are opposed to such, I’m thinking that the presence of a Libertarian in the race created an additional hurdle for Steve Stivers.

But the headline of this post is about Kasich, not Stivers.  Hmm . . . Are you way ahead of me at this point?  Can you tell where I’m going with this blog post already?  Perhaps so.

Remember, that ally of ACORN, Jennifer Brunner, is still Secretary of State through the culmination of this year’s elections, thus she still has her hand in the cookie jar.  In 2009, and now in 2010, Jennifer Brunner has permitted the Libertarian Party much more access to the ballot.

Don’t forget the Tea Party movement, either.  It could be a wellspring of 2010 candidates that are independent of any political party.

All across Ohio, GOP candidates up and down the ballot will have to face up to November’s additional hurdles presented by Libertarian and independent challengers who will demonstrate that the GOP has no monopoly over conservative-minded voters.  On the left?  There will be little competition to fracture the Democrat base.

There might not be an independent running in the Governor’s race, as it is a fairly daunting task to mount an independent run for Governor, but it’s too early to tell.

The Libertarian Party, though rising in prominence, is still small, with meager resources.  It’s unlikely that the Libertarians would subdivide their meager resources to support candidates in all five statewide executive branch races.  I think someone with a Libertarian philosophy might make a good fit for a State Auditor’s race, especially since Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor has now been corralled into running on the Kasich ticket as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor.  But does consolidating Libertarian resources in the Auditor’s race make any sense to the Libertarian Party?  No.

In the Libertarian Party’s own interests, I believe they will contest the governor’s race.  The governor’s race is unique among the statewide executive branch races in that it determines which political parties are major political parties and which are minor political parties, in accordance with Ohio’s election laws. If the Libertarians concentrate their efforts on backing a Libertarian candidate for governor, they’d be hoping to get enough votes to qualify as a major political party.  If they managed to do that, one of the first changes one would notice in 2011 would be that, in 88 counties, Libertarians would be added as officers of each Board of Elections.  Right now, only Democrats and Republicans constitute each county’s Board of Elections.  Other changes to Ohio’s political landscape would follow, and the GOP’s influence would surely be impacted.

Mary Taylor, campaign funds notwithstanding, would have been a shoo-in to retain her Apportionment Board seat as Ohio Auditor.  Among the 5 statewide executive branch races, 3 have a bearing on the composition of the Apportionment Board.  2010 is a U.S. Census year.  Before  the 2012 elections, legislative districts across Ohio must be redrawn to adjust for population shifts revealed by the 2010 U.S. Census.  The 3 races that matter to the apportionment board are: Ohio Secretary of State, Ohio Auditor, and Ohio Governor.  If a political party captures two out of these three crucial races, they capture the majority of the Apportionment Board that will redraw Ohio’s legislative map.  Mary Taylor was the GOP’s surest foothold in the climb to capturing the majority of the Apportionment Board.  Now, she’s been removed from the Auditor’s race, repositioned as a Lieutenant Governor candidate on the gubernatorial ticket headed by John Kasich.

The GOP may have forfeited the Auditor’s race and the Apportionment Board seat.  No one in the GOP was planning on challenging Taylor for the Republican nomination in the Auditor’s race.  The race, at this point, is totally vacant, and petitions to appear on the primary ballot are due to be filed by February 18th.  That’s not a lot of time to qualify for the statewide ballot, let alone clear the candidate’s calendar for campaigning, and especially for raising campaign funds.  Taylor was criticized for her fundraising by some pundits in various corners of the state, but she had more of a campaign treasury to fight for re-election to the Auditor’s seat than an absence of a candidate has.  No candidate=no campaign funds to win the election.  So, how did criticizing Taylor about fundraising help the GOP’s chances of capturing the seat?  Hello! You’ve got to at least have a name on the ballot to have any chance of winning!  Isn’t that obvious?

I’m sure somebody will surface as a GOP candidate for Auditor, but they’ll probably have to do so with less funds than Taylor had in trying to capture an open seat.  Taylor was only defending a seat she already held, and she’d won accolades for her performance as Auditor from many quarters, including even from some Democrats.  Doesn’t a positive perception of her job performance by voters add up to an advantage that can compensate for some campaign dollars?  I think so.  All-in-all, this opportunity to retain this Apportionment board seat appears to have been squandered.

In the Secretary of State race, the supposed frontrunners for nominations to their respective parties are Jon Husted for the GOP, and Jennifer Garrison for the Democrats.  Jon Husted, however, isn’t popular among all of Ohio’s Republicans, and perhaps Sandy O’Brien can steal away the GOP nomination like she did in the Treasurer’s race in 2006.  Jennifer Garrison isn’t popular among all the Democrats, either, so Husted and the Ohio GOP chair, Kevin DeWine besides banking on winning the May primary, are hoping and praying Garrison’s base won’t be energized this November.  I think the GOP’s chances of securing this Apportionment Board seat are iffy, but I think the chances are better for this race than for the Auditor’s race or the Governor’s race.

And now for the hubris of John Kasich, Republican candidate for Ohio Governor in 2010.  No doubt he’s giddy about capturing Mary Taylor to run on his ticket.  He may even be giddy about Strickland’s poll numbers as Strickland’s term in office resembles a train wreck.  But John Kasich, not Mary Taylor, will be at the top of the ticket, and Kasich is not universally revered and loved.  In fact, Kasich is not even universally known.  Furthermore, Kasich won’t have a monopoly on the “smaller government” message, as there’s likely to be a Libertarian candidate as well, a Libertarian with lots of incentive to peel away as many GOP voters as possible.  Keep in mind that Jennifer Brunner is still Secretary of State, and she’s not shy about leveraging whatever she can to improve Democrat outcomes.  Those Strickland versus Kasich poll numbers?  They don’t include any Libertarian in the polling.  Kasich may tout his balanced budget in Congress all he wants, but many voters, even among the Tea Party crowd, might only be dimly aware of that accomplishment.  More than likely, those who know just one or two things about Kasich are probably going to know that he used to be in Congress (a Beltway insider!  Oh no!  Yes, they will conveniently have already forgotten that Strickland was once a Beltway insider, too  . . . but the Libertarian definitely won’t be a Beltway insider) and, thanks to the Strickland campaign, voters will learn that he was somehow involved in the bankrupt Lehman Brothers firm (a Wall Street insider!  Double whammy!  Even Strickland can’t be portrayed that way!  The Libertarian will, no doubt, be free of that baggage, too!).  When the eventual Libertarian candidate is included in the poll numbers, the pollsters will be informing those polled that there IS a Libertarian alternative, and they might even mention the name of that candidate in the same breath as John Kasich and Ted Strickland, helping the Libertarian candidate overcome anonymity enough to erode Kasich’s voter base.  The left wing media might do their part to help re-elect Strickland by devoting coverage to the Libertarian (at least, I suppose Jennifer Brunner was envisioning all this as she facilitated Libertarian candidates’ access to the ballot during the past year or so).

Kasich should take nothing for granted.  Unfortunately, that’s not the way he has campaigned, to date.  Kasich seems to be taking much for granted.  He doesn’t seem to have realized it, but, despite the Strickland train wreck, he faced longer odds of capturing the governor’s seat at the outset of his campaign than either Husted or Taylor faced of winning their seats.  The GOP had a sure foothold in the Auditor’s race, an iffy chance in the SoS race, and a very challenging race in the Governor’s race.  The sure foothold has been forfeited, and, somehow, Kasich prides himself on that accomplishment, but he hasn’t shored up the possible sources of electoral base erosion in doing so.

Mary Taylor, from all appearances, wants to challenge Sherrod Brown for U.S. Senator in 2012.  Supposedly, a Lieutenant Governor seat would afford her the opportunity to campaign for Senate and hold government office at the same time.  She was likely to win re-election as Auditor.  But, as a voter, what would add to Taylor’s stature as a Senate candidate?  Taylor as state auditor, doing a better job than any of her auditor predecessors?  Or Taylor as Lieutenant Governor, where it’s really difficult to quantify her contribution to state government for the benefit of voters?  I think she’s more formidable as a Senate candidate as the sitting Auditor.  Now, let’s take that one step further.  As I’ve outlined, Kasich has more obstacles to winning than he’s, so far, acknowledged.  What are Mary Taylor’s chances of winning the 2012 U.S. Senate race as a failed lieutenant governor candidate if Kasich loses this November?  Greatly diminished, I think.

Kasich, in his hubris, has probably shortchanged both the Ohio GOP, notably the GOP leadership and the eventual GOP Auditor nominee, but potentially shortchanging all Republicans who will be seeking General Assembly seats for a decade beginning in 2012, and he may even be shortchanging Mary Taylor’s U.S. Senate aspirations, as well.

He’d better get off his duff (he probably thinks he’s already doing so, but I think he needs to redefine his notions) and campaign like his life depends on it if Kasich is going to win this November.  He’s holding way too many of the Republican Party’s marbles for him to come up short on Election Day without seriously damaging the party.

[UPDATE 1/21/2010] Lo and behold, as foretold, a Libertarian on the ballot for Ohio Governor.

[UPDATE X 2] Don’t blame me. I endorsed Annette Butler.

Of course, I’m referring to Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason.  When he was up for re-election in 2008, I endorsed Annette Butler.   I harped on the corruption in county government.

But there is a political dimension to the corruption that grips Cuyahoga County.  It has everything to do with the Democrat Party.  In this election, I can’t think of a better place to get started with reform than the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s office with the election of Annette Butler.

Now, questions are being asked of Bill Mason in the wake of a traffic incident in which Mason was a passenger in a vehicle wherein the driver was apparently intoxicated.  But this story will turn out to be more than just your typical DUI, I’m fairly certain.  The Plain Dealer has this to say, but you might want to check back with the PD, because I think there might be more Bill Mason coverage on the way, and it might not have much to do with traffic.

[UPDATE 1/17/2010] As expected, there is more from the PD about Bill Mason, and it’s not about traffic, and it’s not good news, either.

[UPDATE 1.29.2010] More . . . again, not about traffic, but a detectable pattern of, shall we say . . . cronyism?