Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Ohio CPAs endorse Kasich

Anyone who follows this blog knows I don't think endorsements make much of a difference unless there is a little money behind it.

If the organization supporting you spends dollars to communicate your message, it helps. If they don't, it's a one day story and doesn't matter much.

I think the Ohio CPAs in Ohio are an exception to the rule.

Over the course of the discussion in the media about Ohio's massive budget deficit, the CPAs have been front and center as a fair voice of reason about what needs to be done. And most importantly, the Ohio media seems to trust them.

And today, they endorsed John Kasich:

The group whose leaders said they weren't going to endorse any state candidate who did not come up with a plan to tackle the looming state budget deficit today endorsed GOP gubernatorial candidate John Kasich.

“John Kasich and (running mate) Mary Taylor have a strong understanding of the changes that need to be made in Ohio to create jobs and attract and retain employers, keep the best and brightest students here, and make government more efficient and effective for Ohio’s citizens and the business community alike,” said J. Clarke Price, the society's president and CEO, in a statement. “Their past performance in the public and private sectors, and their clear vision for the future of our state, demonstrate that they are the right candidates to lead Ohio toward financial stability.”

When a proven trusted organization endorses your candidate on an issue of such importance to Ohio voters and as high profile as the budget, it matters.


  1. Stunning. An organization that, like the NFIB, almost always endorses the GOP endorses the GOP candidate despite the fact that the candidate has yet to release a plan that organization said was essentialy before they'd even consider endorsing.

    Yep, real gamechanger there.

    More people Ohioans are gun owners than CPAs. But you keep talking about getting these low hanging fruit endorsements matter.

  2. Um. They endorsed your golden boy, Richard Cordray.

    And since you clearly didn't read the post, I'll try all caps.


    Their numbers don't matter. I never said they did. It's the message that comes with them.

    I mentioned the NFIB once on this blog. And that was in a discussion about the FOP endorsement you all seemed to think was a big deal. As I said then:

    On TV, Strickland can say "And that's why I have the support of police across the state."
    With his endorsement from the NFIB, Kasich can say "I have the support of small business because I know how to bring jobs to Ohio."

    They both have their positives. The question is what rings more important to the voter.

  3. Dispatch coverage of it would seem to indicate that the Ohio CPA's brand has been damaged by this endorsements since they swore in June that they would make NO endorsement until the candidates gave a specific and detailed plan on solving the budget deficit.

    Not only has Kasich not done that, he hasn't also given any indication of any plan to pay for his tax plans.

    The Ohio CPAs traditionally endorses Republicans, even the Dispatch says so. Mike DeWine isn't a Repubican, ergo they endorsed Cordray because there was no real Republican in the race?

    Or are you saying that Mike DeWine is a real Republican?

  4. This Esquire guy is hilarious. All this effort, all this brainpower (I use the term loosely), tracking down non-compliers with the Obama-Strickland agenda and picking fights.

    And for what? In a few weeks, we go to the polls. And from the looks of things, Ted Strickland's in big trouble. I wouldn't want to be on the ballot four years after having promised to "turn Ohio around" with double-digit unemployment on my resume.

    It's not over, of course. We'll soon know how effectively the Obama-Strickland machine proves to be at dragging their usual band of whiners, liars and other malcontents to the polls on Election Day.

    But this ain't 2008. And a lot of promises have gone unfulfilled since then. And 2006.

    Yes, Strickland's rockin'. LOL.

  5. "Anyone who follows this blog knows I don't think endorsements make much of a difference unless there is a little money behind it."

    You're a conservative who approves of special interest groups injecting themselves, their opinions, and their money into races? I thought you guys loved, respected, and defended our Constitution. Where are the "strict" Constitutionalists?

    No matter the side, if you're not in the Constitution, you're not in the process.

  6. OK, Jung...does that include unions?

  7. Scarlet

    In my opinion - yes. I'm anti-special interest groups. I don't care if you're NOW, ACLU, HRC, PETA, or AFSCME. Special interests should spend their money energizing their members, educating voters, not giving to candidates. I'm sure I'm a bastard to many a Democratic group for this position, but voter apathy and special interest money spending are parts of the same plane.

    And as much belly-aching as Keeling does on his blog about unions, one would think he'd be just as anti-special interest as anyone. Except for the RGA, AEI, and other swiftboaters. But I guess he's okay with special interests that support his candidate?


No profanity, keep it clean.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.