Posts
If Republicans are looking for a presidential candidate who
brings experience and accomplishment, a man who could do the job from day one,
they could not do very much better than Ohio governor John Kasich.
As Chairman of the House Budget committee, Kasich balanced
the budget. He had extensive experience on the House Foreign Affairs committee.
He has been a very successful governor of a state that Republicans need to win.
You have a problem with that?
And yes, I know that some Republicans will want to dismiss
Kasich for failing one or another ideological litmus tests. One ought to
understand that no one cannot govern effectively without making a few compromises,
like on Common Core and Medicaid.
Those who were thrilled to support a candidate who had been
a middling governor of a state that Republicans will never win and who was the
godfather of Obamacare, have forfeited their right to dismiss Kasich for
lacking ideological purity.
I think it’s fair to say that Kasich is the most qualified
of the Republican candidates, though one must say that most of the current candidates are barely qualified at all. Some are not even close to being
qualified. Having a bunch of ideas--good, bad and indifferent-- does not qualify anyone to be president. Being able to give a speech does not a president make.
As Kasich prepares to enter the race, he made the case for
his candidacy yesterday.
Here is the CBN report:
In an
exclusive one-on-one interview with The Brody File, Ohio Governor John Kasich
says that if he runs for President of the United States he’ll enter the race as
a man of accomplishment. “It’s experience and record. Amateur hour is over,”
Kasich tells us from the Faith and Freedom Road To Majority Conference in Washington
DC.
Kasich
is a popular governor who can tell an economic turnaround story in a key swing
state. Impressive credentials indeed. “We have come back almost from the dead
and the record is good and I think if you have that experience and you have the
record, it’s not about ‘tell me’ it’s about ‘show me’ and I think its time that
we’re able to support somebody that has a solid record of accomplishment
because that’s what we need in America. No more on the job training.”
Republicans would do well to end “amateur hour” if they want
to be taken seriously as a governing party.
And, of course, a recent poll in Ohio, a state where people
know John Kasich well, has him leading Hillary Clinton 47%-41%.
You have a problem with that?
7 comments:
That's pretty much what I've been thinking, too.
Thanks, I hope it's not just the two of us.
A publicly brutal primary structure will produce the best nominee from large field... make sure each candidate stands up in front of the public, answering questions, talking to the other candidates directly, and -- most importantly -- for a long time. That's a meaningful vetting process. That's THE vetting process. That's a REAL vetting process.
Bloodied, but tested. Perhaps heavily bloodied, with a limp, but able to stand on two feet, worthy of respect. Able to look a Hillary with no achievements in the eye and ask "What the hell have you done?" After all, it's very sanitary. There's no real loss for her. She's not going to lose... she'll make millions working for the Clinton Foundations after losing. And then she'll direct money for Putin the easy way. No need for handwashing. No need to worry about defending Bill's interest in underage girls his billionaire buddies have supplied him with. Life can be so much easier. Who cares about women's real rights, when you can focus on insulating women from their libertine choices.
Do we honestly believe that Democrat op-for won't dredge up the dirt on the leading Republican candidates if their primary process is "nice"? Hillary will be wounded no matter what.
Republicans need someone who so tough, smart and experienced. If that's Kasich, okay. But I don't see Kasich as a fundraising maven. Yet the normal Republican problem is "it's his turn." If we can stand that nonsense on its head, I think Republicans can win. Without it, they'll lose... but they'lldo it on principle. They'll be principled losers. Yeah. Excitement. Rah-rah. Go team.
Isn't "principled losing" the Republicans' greatest historical problem?
And with so many Supreme Court seats coming due in the next term, you can count on liberals doing anything and everything to protect their concept of women's rights, which in modern liberal terms means one thing: unfettered access to abortion on demand. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. That's it. That is the sum total of institutional women's rights in the United States of America today. End of discussion. In fact, the political strategy is to prevent all discussion. In the name of privacy, which is invoked in the name of unfettered free speech.
It's all very odd.
I think the Republicans and the GOP are beyond redemption.
It is past time for republicans (note case usage here--it is important) to come together and select and elect people who will SUPPORT their republican ideals.
The problem with bloody primary fights is that when candidates insult and demean each other they are also insulting and demeaning those who support different candidates. Thus, voters end up feeling turned off by the victor and stay home.
Kasich's time has come and gone. He would have been fantastic in 2012, but now we have a whole slew of candidates just as good and (most importantly) much younger.
Kasich has been a good governor of Ohio, served admirably as House Budget Committee chairman, and as Fox political analyst. But like Jeb Bush, it's over for him.
Stuart, I agree with you. This is why I think Reagan's "11th Commandment" is key here. I would prefer Republicans have clear exchanges on issues, rather than personal attacks. I would like to hear what they are FOR rather than what they are against. It's silly... who is FOR Hillary? Give people a choice. Perhaps "bloody" was a bad word for the kind of primary format I'm looking for from debates. Perhaps "thorough" would be a better characterization. I suspect that there are so many candidates because it's become so easy to run. I wonder if these people take the office they seek seriously. I would like to see a demanding format that weeds out the un-serious, without structurally excluding them. By the way, my view of this is consistent with my view of ballot initiatives and the filibuster. I believe both are important and necessary mechanisms, but they should be difficult to execute, reflecting popular will (ballot initiatives) and personal conviction (the filibuster). The threshold for petitions for ballot initiatives in my own state (Michigan) are far too low, and the Senate should not allow filibusters with breaks. If you're going to filibuster, you should have to do it the old-fashioned way.
Post a Comment