Election endorsements

[reality_hammer]

Election endorsements for Ohio:

Ohio Governor: Ken Blackwell. A Reagan Republican!
Ohio Senator: Mike DeWine. He's no John F. Kerry!
Ohio 3rd District Representative: Mike Turner. Dayton and Ohio have benefited from his leadership.
Ohio Issues:

1. Vote yes on issue 1. State benefit funds should not be invested in non-traditional "investments".
   

Comments

hmm

[kungfutzu]

I think I feel sorry for you ... you have to vote for DeWine, wasn't he one of the gang of 14?

Boy would I ever have to hold my nose to vote for one of them.

Re: hmm

[reality_hammer]

I know...he actually tries to use his participation in the Gang of 14 as a positive.

If he wins I will be sending him a letter letting him know that it was a vote against Kerry and certainly not a vote affirming his weak-kneed sellout of the core Republican principles.

Re: hmm

[kungfutzu]

That's a really good idea ... if all these conservatives who are pissed off would, rather than not voting, would hold their nose, vote and then send a letter, that could be meaningful.

Wish someone had mentioned that nationally.

btw, what's up with your votes against smoking? Just wondering -- I don't smoke but I do have trouble with any kind of legislation of behavior. (Although i'm not entirely a libertarian, but I agree with their fundamental premise about the role of government.)

Re: hmm

[reality_hammer]

The state issues would repeal all local issues and allow smoking where cities have decided (by ballot) to ban smoking in public places.

I'm in favor of allowing local municipalities to decide. The statewide issues trumped that. :/ So between statewide voters repealing local initiatives and statewide voters banning smoking in public places except where designated (smoking rooms in hotels, etc.) and forbids the outlawing of "no smoking" signs and designated non-smoking areas (as in you can't outlaw non-smoking areas) I'll take the statewide ban.

As for the backsliding Republicans, I voted against DeWine in the primary. The best place to punish Republicans is in the primary, IMO. Jumping out of the frying pan into the fire isn't my idea of using my vote efficiently.

[spicy_mustard]

If issue 5 is something that tells private business owners to ban smoking on their premises, I would vote against it. I know I voted for all of our proposals except the one that mandates inflationary increases in public education spending. At least you have the wage law on your ballot. The legislature just passed a minimum wage increase here without even asking us. :(

[blindman738]

Government should never pass laws that prohibit a private restraunt owner how he can cater to his customers. Dallas passed that stupid law 2 years ago and it just pissed people off. Convention revenue shrunk, tourism is down and the West End area is suffering badly.

They determine whether you can allow smoking based on percentage of food sales versus alcohol sales. For some reason now they are planning to go "audit" Dallas restaurants and bars, because they think some restaurans don't really have the proper percentage of food sales to be deemed a restaurant. Their bright idea to encourage these businesses to become more food than alcohol sales was to offer tax and other incentives. Now they're concerned that these places are scamming the government. Idiots.

[spicy_mustard]

Ugh, I'm a non-smoker, yet I'm appalled at the lengths the smoke-free lobby will go. Someone here in the city of Battle Creek wants to pass a similar law, and the owner of the Hunt Club has stated that he took great measures in installing air circulation systems, and that non-smokers have never complained about the smoke from smokers. Regardless if there had been, I said if that commissioner wants a smoke-free establishment, she should build one herself, not subject her wants on other business owners. BTW, there are some places in Battle Creek that have gone smoke-free on their own accord. And now after reading the Ohio proposal, it seemingly would ban smoking in bars and restaurants without the owners' consent (unless they're "family-owned," which is pretty vague if not discriminatory against sole proprietorships if you ask me), because the exemptions do not include them. I'm actually surprised that Brett would be for this considering his libertarian leanings.

[reality_hammer]

Eh, smoking is a complex issue. You can say that separate non-smoking areas are fine, but there have been restaurants I stopped going to because their non-smoking areas were a farce.

As a libertarian one would say great, let the market decide whether that works or not. Issue 5 allows for much of that, but not completely. A couple of things that won my support:

• It is a law, not an amendment to the Constitution. Therefore it is easy to overturn.
  
• Smokers. Their behavior in designated non-smoking areas (i.e., continuing to smoke) leads me to believe there needs to be tougher enforcement of non-smoking areas which this law provides for. My decision was influenced a great deal by this.
  
• Smoking would be treated like a polluting activity, which it is.
  

Libertarians talk about controlling pollution via laws/lawsuits which punish polluters, and that is what this does. I'd feel the same way about alcohol if breathing in vapors from someone else drinking adversely affected my health