Reaction to the gubernatorial debate

Reaction to the gubernatorial debate

To the editor:

I watched the Ohio gubernatorial debate and concluded that Kasich puts the guber in gubernatorial. Guber is defined as, "A stage in a man's life when he acts in a way which other's would usually find embarrassing. This can include such acts long boring inquiries into common sense tasks that lead to long meaningless stories."

Over and over he said that his solution to Ohio's problems was to hire outside consultants, who know how to create jobs, to come up with answers while also saying that he has a plan to put Ohioans back to work. How many people watching this debate do you think thought that these two statements were incompatible or even wondered if someone who knew how to create jobs on day one in office shouldn't be running rather than someone who would be putting a help wanted sign up. He also kept saying that he would make Ohio more business friendly by deregulating, not looking over corporation's shoulders and in effect bribing business owners to move to Ohio. Isn't allowing corporations to do as they please, take risks and export jobs for short term profit, and in effect write their own regulations what caused the recent economic collapse? 

Regulations are necessary to prevent a corporate a race to the ethical bottom to remain competitive. Profit, through effort and innovation, is necessary for capitalism to function in America long term but short term profit made by devaluation of the American worker export of their jobs, risky dealings made with the knowledge that profits will lead to personal gain for executives while American taxpayers bail them out if they lose their gambles will eventually bring down the whole economy.

Another thing I found striking in the debate was Kasich's insistence, whenever Governor Strickland brought up specifics, that the governor was engaging in the politics of distraction instead of admitting that he (the governor) was totally responsible for Ohio's job losses and deficits. 

Finally he kept comparing Ohio's problems to those of a restaurant, which I guess is something he and the type people whose votes he is seeking can understand. Personally I would like a governor who knows how to run a state government instead of a restaurant.

Until the debate I was on the fence but Governor Strickland brought up facts I was unaware of while Kasich danced around the real issues. Ohio, like the rest of the country, has suffered during the near economic collapse (and more than most) but (unlike most other states) is on the road to recovering. Am I satisfied with the rate of recovery? Hell no. Am I willing to turn to someone who might very well derail the progress made by applying restaurant management techniques and adopting the practices on Ohio that almost lead the country to a second great depression? Double hell no.

Sincerely,

Charles Leach

Lynchburg

To the editor:

I watched the Ohio gubernatorial debate and concluded that Kasich puts the guber in gubernatorial. Guber is defined as, "A stage in a man's life when he acts in a way which other's would usually find embarrassing. This can include such acts long boring inquiries into common sense tasks that lead to long meaningless stories."

Over and over he said that his solution to Ohio's problems was to hire outside consultants, who know how to create jobs, to come up with answers while also saying that he has a plan to put Ohioans back to work. How many people watching this debate do you think thought that these two statements were incompatible or even wondered if someone who knew how to create jobs on day one in office shouldn't be running rather than someone who would be putting a help wanted sign up. He also kept saying that he would make Ohio more business friendly by deregulating, not looking over corporation's shoulders and in effect bribing business owners to move to Ohio. Isn't allowing corporations to do as they please, take risks and export jobs for short term profit, and in effect write their own regulations what caused the recent economic collapse? 

Regulations are necessary to prevent a corporate a race to the ethical bottom to remain competitive. Profit, through effort and innovation, is necessary for capitalism to function in America long term but short term profit made by devaluation of the American worker export of their jobs, risky dealings made with the knowledge that profits will lead to personal gain for executives while American taxpayers bail them out if they lose their gambles will eventually bring down the whole economy.

Another thing I found striking in the debate was Kasich's insistence, whenever Governor Strickland brought up specifics, that the governor was engaging in the politics of distraction instead of admitting that he (the governor) was totally responsible for Ohio's job losses and deficits. 

Finally he kept comparing Ohio's problems to those of a restaurant, which I guess is something he and the type people whose votes he is seeking can understand. Personally I would like a governor who knows how to run a state government instead of a restaurant.

Until the debate I was on the fence but Governor Strickland brought up facts I was unaware of while Kasich danced around the real issues. Ohio, like the rest of the country, has suffered during the near economic collapse (and more than most) but (unlike most other states) is on the road to recovering. Am I satisfied with the rate of recovery? Hell no. Am I willing to turn to someone who might very well derail the progress made by applying restaurant management techniques and adopting the practices on Ohio that almost lead the country to a second great depression? Double hell no.

Sincerely,

Charles Leach

Lynchburg