I don't blame the PAC for this. Hell Strickland lost, which makes it even harder to blame any of the PACs (NRA, OFCC, BFA, etc...). But I also have tried to trumpet my concern about appointments, which often have a much farther reaching effect than who is elected as governor. This is the second anti-gun appointment Strickland made to the Ohio Supreme Court (I am counting Brown, 'cause I have no doubt that when the Cleveland decision comes out, he will be ruling against us). Had it been one of the pro-gun justices that had died, Strickland's appointment likely would have cost us pre-emption.
Now yes I know, Kasich anti gun.... Kasich's appointment will be... blah, blah blah. In reality, I would be willing to bet the any Kasich appointment won't be anti-gun. This is simply because gun issues won't be at the top of Kasich's mind when he makes appointments, just like gun issues clearly are not at the top of Strickland's mind when he makes his appointments. Now Kasich may sign restaurant carry, or he may not. It would seem that he has told some of the Reps that he would sign it. Time will tell on that issue. If he does sign it, I suspect the anti-Kasich people will remain oddly silent just like they have so far in this thread. I, for one, couldn't bring myself to vote for either. However, that doesn't mean that the appointment issue was lost on me.
But back to the PAC's.... they did what they were supposed to do. They supported someone who has signed every pro gun bill that was brought in front of him. They supported a candidate who voted against the AWB, instead of supporting a candidate who voted for it. I can't blame the PAC's for that... I just didn't entirely agree with them, because of other issues such as appointments, help getting Obama re-elected, etc... That was my choice. It's not like the PAC's made you vote one way or the other - they simply offer a recommendation. With the impending Republican control of the House, if Strickland had been re-elected the PAC probably figured we would see pro-gun legislation for years to come. I completely understand why they endorsed the way they did - I just didn't agree with it. The PAC's don't make you vote a certain way - that choice was up to you, just like it was up to me. I took the PAC's recommendation into consideration, and then decided to agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I didn't vote for either one of them.
I was not part of the PAC process, and hold no position within OFCC except as a member. But I would be willing to bet they had a similar discussion amongst themselves, and in the end decided they should endorse based on actions... not what-if's. I agreed to disagree without being disagreeable. And you could have too.