Just guessing here, but it’s possible he (a) often said “Judeo-Christian” while thinking and meaning to convey “Christian”, and (b) realized, too late, that he was for once about to actually say “a Christian society” – and so kludged a save as best he could.
Wasn’t there a Congressman who often said “I served during Vietnam” – clearly trying to imply “I served in Vietnam” – and eventually slipped, saying “I served in Vietnam”? Basically the same idea.
I’m seriously shocked Kasich of all people took 2nd. But itsbad for the GOP so I’m happy 
Yes. And he and Fatso of Trafficjam-Gate are the two moderates in the GOP race. :eek: Either Cruz or Trump – the two frontrunners --would unquestionably be about the most radical major nominee ever, and with the most revulsive platform. Running third is the callow kid from Florida. (Yes, he might make something of himself if seasoned for another decade in the Senate, but I’d bet against that.) No wonder Bloomberg is getting ready to run.
And then, with Fatso rejected, Kasich is the dog in the race for the moderates! :eek: :eek:
Is this the most amazing race ever, or what?
And John Kasich makes the final five, which isn’t really half bad when you think about it. Better than a lot of people would have expected.
And now this “moderate” is going to sign a bill to defund PP:
Kasich is moderate by temperament, not ideology. He’s not a partisan warrior. He does have very conservative views, this is true, but he also believes in working with the other side.
See post #59 and link therein.
Most of that Slate article is just typical liberal bitching, but I’d forgotten about the food stamp story. He’ll have to explain that one if he wants to get any further.
Oh c’mon adaher, it was a mild-mannered and thoughtful article beginning with the words, “Donald Trump is a hemorrhoid of a human being…”
More seriously, I hope Kasich doesn’t mean it when he ways he wants a balanced budget amendment. That would involve tax hikes and budget cuts during recession, something that the last 7 years (and hell the previous 70 years) have shown to be a bad idea. Kasich is in some ways comparable to Dick Cheney: both believed in compromise and negotiation: both are really really conservative. I’m actually surprised Kasich hasn’t gotten more traction. Bush Senior didn’t have a lot of charisma either after all, but he wasn’t bad on the campaign trail.
It depends on what the amendment is, since most I’ve seen would allow deficits during recessions. But what a President thinks of an amendment doesn’t really matter, since Presidents are completely irrelevant to the amendment process. If Congress had the votes, they could pass it now and Obama couldn’t do a thing about it.
I don’t know that Cheney is a good comparison since Cheney is a very secretive guy who likes to work behind the scenes while Kasich has always liked to be in the limelight. I’d compare Kasich more to John McCain. Very conservative, but occasionally heterodox(such as on Medicaid expansion) and always willing to work with the other side. Plus, like McCain, he takes defeat pretty gracefully such as when he lost the union referendum.
To further address BrainGlutton’s post, there are a lot of reasons why Kasich is vulnerable in a general election. But I think his strengths vastly outweigh his vulnerabilities. He’s got the best resume in either field, he’s a popular governor of a swing state, he’s bipartisan, he’s respected by his colleagues on both sides, and he’s not just a down the line conservative. He’s also had a scandal free career, remarkable for someone in politics as long as he’s been.
In the end, what Kasich’s opponents have against him are two things:
He’s been really, badly wrong on a few key issues. And while I don’t believe he’s a racist at all, he’s made some decisions(such as appointing an all-white cabinet and the welfare thing) that could leave him vulnerable on that count.
He’s a career politician who has never done anything useful otherwise.
The nice thing about this election though is that the Democrats have a choice between two very flawed candidates.
Yeah, I saw that too. He has definitely earned the scare quotes around “moderate.” This is simply unreasonable stuff. Nobody else is ready to step up and fill the void when Planned Parenthood’s services get cut. Apparently if they provide abortions, then in the minds even of “moderates” like Kasich, it infects their pap smears or something.
If this were Discworld, the entire Republican Party would be off the edge, and waving to A’Tuin on the way down.
I agree, as a Liberal D, all R’s are irreparably flawed, but Kasich…less so than most.
Regarding the 2 things opponents have against Kasich…there is nothing there that would discourage a R, no matter how battish crazy right wing, to vote against him. On the other hand, he might draw a few percent independent votes denied to Cruz or Trump, Bush or Rubio.
Sanders’ only significant flaw is his age.
And not any of this crap – those are credentials.
Gay marriage, Medicaid expansion, refusal to deport undocumented immigrants/calling for amnesty/road to citizenship, etc.
Lots of Republicans have lots and lots of issues with lots of what Kasich says. Now, from my POV, these are his only good positions, but still.
Kasich is a right-winger, in the Reagan or Jeb style. Still, he’s a more worthy contender from the GOP than the buffoonish egomaniac, the teabagging evangelist, or the callow kid.
As of now, Betfair shows approximately the following odds on the dogs racing toward the November win:
Hillary 1-1
Trump 6-1
Rubio 10-1
Sanders 11-1
Bush 16-1
Cruz 18-1
Bloomb 35-1
Biden 90-1
Kasich 100-1
Other 45-1
I think that is quite wrong. I’d move Kasich from last to near the top. He is the GOP’s best hope to upset Ms. Clinton. Here are the odds I’ll show:
Hillary 5-4
Kasich 5-1
Rubio 6-1
Bush 10-1
Sanders 18-1
Biden 28-1
Trump 40-1
Cruz 45-1
Bloomb 250-1
Other 45-1
What do others think?
What about the entitled aristo?
If crucible is talking about whether those positions would keep any right-wing Republicans from voting for Kasich against Hillary or Bernie, rather than for him for the nomination, I think he’s pretty much right. A handful of wingnuts might abstain, figuring ‘what’s the difference between them,’ but very few. Fox News and all the talk-radio people they listen to would be telling them that the difference was quite real.