Kasich had a terrific record as one of 435 congressmen. Don't know how much more he could do. DeWine had a fantastic record up to about 2002---his ACU lifetime rating was 96. Now, come on. Up until the gang of 14 and some of the other lunacy he got involved in, he was exceptional. 100% pro-life, good on taxes, supportive of the WoT, solid GOP vote on most issues. He had the horrible ANWR vote that cost us ANWR, literally, and he went soft on guns and along with his tin ear for the electorate, it cost him his seat in 2006. But if you looked at DeWine in 2000, you'd say, well, this guy is pretty much what we need.
I see everything you just wrote here and understand what you are saying. HOWEVER ...
Only people with terrific name recognition have a chance.
That means celebrities, sports stars, or professional pols who can get their name in the papers all the time.
... adding in the money factor you mentioned and all we are left with is the same old same old. Well, if that is getting real, I pass.
Apparently I have been naive in thinking the American people had finally woke up and will no longer accept the status quo. If what you have said is indeed the mind set of the controlling authority, I will not waste anymore of my time, energy and money going to Tea Party's and other such meetings.
Did you happen to see the old Cheers episode last night?
It was the episode where Dr. Craine conducted an experiment by running Woody Boyd, the bartender, for Boston City Council. He bet the bar patrons he could get Woody 10% of the vote by doing nothing more than entering his name on the ballot and printing up a few posters, placing them in strategic spots around the city.
That is what we need to do. Run "Joe the Plumber" types using a truly grassroots organization to make phone calls, go door to door, write letters, call radio stations, blog etc. etc. As you said, not to mention MONEY, to run for any office is outrageous.
It is outrageous and that would be a great campaign issue -- fiscal responsibility begins with me!
With the economic condition we are in currently, and God only knows what it will be next year, this is the perfect time to change course and give us real hope.
Where are you getting that figure?
According to the ACU website, his lifetime rating in 2002 was 83%. However, if you add their figures for his 8 years and divide by 8 you get a lifetime rating of 77%. The same is true of his entire recorded lifetime rating of 79.8%. When you divide their own numbers by 12 you get a lifetime rating of 74.7%
Mike DeWine NEVER had a rating of 96...not even for one year out of 12. He had a 95 in 2002 -- his only year even close to 90%. 2 years he received an 85, 1 year at 84 and 1 year at 80. 5 out 12 years...the rest were in the 60s and 70s with 2005 @ 56.
http://www.acuratings.org/ratingsarchive/2002/2002Senate.htm