Keeping that in mind, all I can say is that I have been following politics for over a half century, and been on FR a long time, and those experiences have taught me that you work to get as much of your agenda enacted as you can, understanding that while you may not get everything you want every time, you do the best you can and not give up on working to get the rest. Our political system isn't perfect but some choices are very clear. Right now, in this particular race, it is clear to me that Ted Strickland has done absolutely nothing beneficial for the state. Of the two, Kasich has a better political philosophy that would enable a turnaround.
Others have noted their objection to Kasich on the basis of his one compromise on the firearms issue as their basis for rejecting him as a candidate. While I disagree with his stance on that particular legislation, I don't think his position on that particular proposed law is dispositive of an anti-2nd Amendment mindset. Like I said, I know the man and he isn't stupid. If he were to become Governor, I think he would be open to fair-minded consideration of the other side of the issue and therefore subject to persuasion. I don't have any confidence that Ted Strickland, or any other 'Rat, would be so disposed. In that sense, in a head-to-head matchup, Kasich would be, on balance, a better candidate (IMO only) than the 'Rat.
I fully agree except for the last point. I would state it in these terms: "I want candidates who will defend the right to life". Period. Because that is how it is stated in the Declaration and the Constitution.
The on the gun control issue, for me at least, it isn't so much the fact that he voted for the assault weapons ban (although that is part of it, for sure) _but_ that he compromised a plank of the Republican party and passed a bill for Clinton that wouldn't have passed without his vote or the votes of the people in the Republican ranks that he took with him. And if elected, they can rightly claim that 'even Kasich voted for the assault weapons ban and the Brady bill'. And they most certainly will.
This betrayal of principles is more operative than the actual issue that he gave to Clinton. It is this type of softness that the liberals continue to use to whip the Republicans whether it is McCain and Graham who support Obama's restrictions of EIT's or the closing of Gitmo or whether it is using Martin Feldstein's and Lindsay Graham's comments agreement with nationializing the banks.
When those type of statements are made, the libs can use them in order to show that even (what they consider) "smart Republicans" (and they will even use the term 'conservatives') agree with them on these issues. And as far as elections go, that is exactly the type of moderate thinking that lose elections for the Republicans and that has been shown time and again. This type of behavior, while it might make those doing it the 'darling of the press' (until they actually run against one of theirs) but it doesn't win elections. And anything that we can do to discourage this, ie. by not supporting or voting for, or supporting more principled candidates in the primaries is the only way for us to gain back a majority and start winning elections.