O-H-I-O: BO Must Go!

There has been much consideration given to Ohio in the 2012 presidential election, and rightfully so. Ohio is a microcosm of the nation. It is a diverse mix of urban and suburban with wide educational, cultural, and socio-economic differences. Very often as Ohio goes, so goes the nation. With its coveted 18 electoral votes well in mind, both candidates have been hitting it hard -- campaigning, stumping, running ads.

It is possible for the presidential election to be won without Ohio. But such a development has been exceedingly rare (as in never for a Republican and not since 1960 for a Democrat). Suffice to say, there are plenty of eyes on the Buckeye State. The outcome in Ohio could very well decide the outcome of the presidential election.

Currently, in most Ohio polls, the candidates are running just about even. While Obama had an early lead, per mainstream media reports, Romney has since significantly closed the gap. This turnaround was due to, in no small part, the first presidential debate.

During the first debate, the world was finally able to see not the Romney the Obama campaign tried to portray, but the real Romney, sharp and enthusiastic, qualified and capable, a level-headed problem-solver, ready and willing to lead. Unfortunately for Obama, the world saw the real O as well, dull and indifferent, unqualified and incapable, a hot-headed enabler, ill-prepared and not willing to lead (see, 'leading from behind'). The contrast in substance, style and class could not have been more obvious. And American responded, with Romney vaulting up in the polls, jumping some 8 points in Ohio.

Ohio is clearly doing better than many of the other states. At 7.2% unemployment (virtually unchanged over the last few months), it has been running approximately one percentage point lower than the national rate (not counting the most recent and suspect 7.8% national unemployment rate reported by the BLS).

While Republicans and Democrats want to argue over who is responsible for Ohio's employment success, Obama mostly by taking full credit for the auto bailout (even though it was George W. Bush who actually began the process and there is still debate over if and how well it worked, let alone how much it cost taxpayers) or Governor John Kasich (for his pro-business, pro-jobs, pro-growth policies), I think the answer is pretty clear. Ohio is succeeding primarily due to Governor John Kasich and his policies -- policies very much in line with Mitt Romney's.

Since Kasich took office in January 2011, more than 100,000 jobs have been added in Ohio. Sure, Obama was president during that time, but he was also president for two years during the tenure of Democrat governor Ted Strickland. During the Strickland/Obama timeframe, Ohio lost over 100,000 jobs! So while the Obama factor was a constant, the governor factor had changed and the results were dramatically different.

Kasich is a fiscal conservative; a principled and goal-oriented man; a man who plans, then acts. His actions, while occasionally thwarted by his opposition, garner tangible results. To those who think otherwise, I would ask: If Ohio is doing well because of Obama, why aren't all the other states doing equally as well? Obama has control over the entire country. Why would Ohio show improvement and not many of the other states? What does Ohio have that other states do not (besides Brutus and TBDBITL!)?

Quite simply, Ohio has a Republican governor! In fact, most of the states that are doing relatively well, that is, better than the others, all have Republican governors! Republican governors have proven that conservative fiscal policies do work. And apparently, so do Americans in states with Republican leadership!

It's time to take what works in the states to the federal level by electing Mitt Romney the next President of the United States! If Ohio is doing 'relatively well' now under Kasich, imagine how much better 'relatively well' could become with Mitt Romney in the White House.

There has been much consideration given to Ohio in the 2012 presidential election, and rightfully so. Ohio is a microcosm of the nation. It is a diverse mix of urban and suburban with wide educational, cultural, and socio-economic differences. Very often as Ohio goes, so goes the nation. With its coveted 18 electoral votes well in mind, both candidates have been hitting it hard -- campaigning, stumping, running ads.

It is possible for the presidential election to be won without Ohio. But such a development has been exceedingly rare (as in never for a Republican and not since 1960 for a Democrat). Suffice to say, there are plenty of eyes on the Buckeye State. The outcome in Ohio could very well decide the outcome of the presidential election.

Currently, in most Ohio polls, the candidates are running just about even. While Obama had an early lead, per mainstream media reports, Romney has since significantly closed the gap. This turnaround was due to, in no small part, the first presidential debate.

During the first debate, the world was finally able to see not the Romney the Obama campaign tried to portray, but the real Romney, sharp and enthusiastic, qualified and capable, a level-headed problem-solver, ready and willing to lead. Unfortunately for Obama, the world saw the real O as well, dull and indifferent, unqualified and incapable, a hot-headed enabler, ill-prepared and not willing to lead (see, 'leading from behind'). The contrast in substance, style and class could not have been more obvious. And American responded, with Romney vaulting up in the polls, jumping some 8 points in Ohio.

Ohio is clearly doing better than many of the other states. At 7.2% unemployment (virtually unchanged over the last few months), it has been running approximately one percentage point lower than the national rate (not counting the most recent and suspect 7.8% national unemployment rate reported by the BLS).

While Republicans and Democrats want to argue over who is responsible for Ohio's employment success, Obama mostly by taking full credit for the auto bailout (even though it was George W. Bush who actually began the process and there is still debate over if and how well it worked, let alone how much it cost taxpayers) or Governor John Kasich (for his pro-business, pro-jobs, pro-growth policies), I think the answer is pretty clear. Ohio is succeeding primarily due to Governor John Kasich and his policies -- policies very much in line with Mitt Romney's.

Since Kasich took office in January 2011, more than 100,000 jobs have been added in Ohio. Sure, Obama was president during that time, but he was also president for two years during the tenure of Democrat governor Ted Strickland. During the Strickland/Obama timeframe, Ohio lost over 100,000 jobs! So while the Obama factor was a constant, the governor factor had changed and the results were dramatically different.

Kasich is a fiscal conservative; a principled and goal-oriented man; a man who plans, then acts. His actions, while occasionally thwarted by his opposition, garner tangible results. To those who think otherwise, I would ask: If Ohio is doing well because of Obama, why aren't all the other states doing equally as well? Obama has control over the entire country. Why would Ohio show improvement and not many of the other states? What does Ohio have that other states do not (besides Brutus and TBDBITL!)?

Quite simply, Ohio has a Republican governor! In fact, most of the states that are doing relatively well, that is, better than the others, all have Republican governors! Republican governors have proven that conservative fiscal policies do work. And apparently, so do Americans in states with Republican leadership!

It's time to take what works in the states to the federal level by electing Mitt Romney the next President of the United States! If Ohio is doing 'relatively well' now under Kasich, imagine how much better 'relatively well' could become with Mitt Romney in the White House.

RECENT VIDEOS