Kasich is semi-tolerable, and really that’s only because of how he contrasts with the rest of his party today. He’s paid for tax cuts for upper income brackets by going after public education in a BIG way. He routinely derides teachers, and I have no idea why he’s driven to attack public education in such a manner. But this strikes me as little more than political corruption hidden in rhetoric palatable to his base (teachers are all lazy, union members) because it doesn’t spur job growth or grow the economy to do so. He’s also gone after abortion providers in a big way.
I think I wrote this before, but I work with a guy in his late 30s, ex-military, very religious, very much a Republican, who recently married a school teacher. During lunch a few months ago he said, “Kasich needs to go. Until I got married I had no idea what he was doing to education in this state.” Dead silence followed for seconds. And then one of the other guys said, “It’s not Kasich, it’s the entire party. State after red state they’re making deep cuts in education spending to try to offset cutting taxes for their campaign donors.”
Timex
3764
I think this is a fair assessment, but the kind of pragmatism that Kasich exhibits is exactly what we need in government today.
While Kasich may be ideologically conservative, he isn’t a lunatic about it. He recognizes that others disagree with him, and he consistently works with them to compromise and come together on something that can actually work. And that is what our system of government is supposed to be all about. He also doesn’t tend to just ignore reality in favor of ideology.
The thing is though, in order to appreciate what Kasich is offering, you need to at least want to grasp some element of how policy actually works, and many in the Republican party seem to just be rejecting any of that, in its entirely. Hell, for many of them, it seems like the fact Kasich actually has an unparalleled track record of success in governance (not simply being elected, but actually doing productive shit after being elected) is almost a liability.
It’s ideological tourettes. They elected a pack of wingnuts with the Tea Partiers, and strangely enough that minority caucus didn’t get them what they wanted. So now it’s out entirely with the establishment. Have you ever compromised with the other side? You the devil! You hugged Obama for coming to your state after a natural disaster hit it? You the devil!
Yeah, as I frequently bash Kasich, don’t get me wrong: he’s by far and away better than many of the other Republican candidates out there. It’s just that he’s completely against many things that I believe in and he makes no bones about it unless that would hurt his chances at re-election and/or threaten his campaign coffers. As John said, he’s done what I consider to be despicable actions and made or overseen changes that I consider incredibly damaging during his tenure as governor. That said, I wasn’t a huge Strickland fan, either.
Honestly, I view him as the conservative Hillary Clinton: doing whatever it takes to get into office and keep it, sacrificing your views for votes and dollars, and hoping to drive policy in the direction that you want in between fundraisers. There’s certainly something to be said for that approach to governance, but it’s not particularly inspiring to me.
Clinton is way more qualified, but has other issues.
RichVR
3768
From earlier this week, Trump on Cruz:
Asked to respond to to comments secretly recorded at a private fundraiser in which Cruz subtly questioned Trump’s judgment with respect to the requirements of being Commander in Chief, Trump said, "I don’t think (Cruz is) qualified to be President because I don’t think he has the right temperament. I don’t think he’s got the right judgment. You look at the way he’s dealt with the Senate where he goes in there like, you know, frankly like a little bit of a maniac. You’re never gonna get things done that way.”
Challenging Cruz’s congeniality, Trump added, “You can’t walk into the Senate and scream and call people liars, and not be able to cajole and get along with people. He’ll never get anything done and that’s the problem with Ted.”
Yeah, it seems every time someone asks them about shooting down Russian planes they all seem so confident that the Russians wouldn’t dare.
NO, THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS. If Putin decides to say Fuck You to our No Fly Zone, are you really going to shoot down Russian planes?
Timex
3770
Yeah, if you draw a line in the sand, then you need to deal with people that cross it.
This was one of Obama’s biggest errors, when he said “you guys better not use chemical weapons, or else!” And then Assad did… And nothing happened.
ShivaX
3771
Which is why you don’t draw said lines in these cases. It is definitely not something worth getting into a shooting war with fucking Russia over.
The intelligence community does not believe Assad was responsible for the attack in Ghouta.
That’s why he ignored his red line, and cancelled the planned air campaign.
That was my recollection of what went down, too.
Timex
3774
Really? That doesn’t really match up with what happened, on a few levels.
What prompted the US to back down from attacking was that Kerry then moved the goal posts, and said that we wouldn’t attack then if they handed over all their chemical weapons, which they did in September of 2013. The backing off had nothing to do with thinking that the Syrian government didn’t actually do it.
And here you can see that the assessments were pretty universal that the Syrian government did in fact carry out the Ghouta attack. It seems like the only government that suggested otherwise was Russia, but seriously, lol Russia.
So Trump is crowing about Hilary being a “liar” because of her claim that ISIS is using his statements against Islam as a recruiting tool. Twit Trump:
Hillary Clinton lied when she said that “ISIS is using video of Donald Trump as a recruiting tool.” This was fact checked by @FoxNews: FALSE
The irony is thick. The Washington Post fact-checked the Hilary statement and tracked it back to Rita Katz, an analyst for the SITE Intelligence Group. Katz, when pressed, backed up the claim. I haven’t actually be able to find any post on Fox News that fact-checks her statement, but there is only so much of that site that I can stand in any one sitting. The AP and FactCheck.org all sort of say that although there is no direct evidence of ISIS invoking Trump in their recruiting efforts, it is very likely to be happening.
Also, he’s defending his buddy Putin, specifically on whether Putin had journalists killed:
Nobody has proven that he’s killed anyone. … He’s always denied it. It’s never been proven that he’s killed anybody. You’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, at least in our country. It has not been proven that he’s killed reporters.
That is true. It’s also not been proven that Trump is not a high-functioning tree sloth with tourette’s syndrome.
ShivaX
3776
Using Fox News for fact-checking. There are not words.
Miramon
3777
It doesn’t matter what the facts are, not to Trump, and not to the GOP voters. So long as the “fact” concerns something which is not intuitively obvious to one of his supporters, the truth is what he says it is.
Timex
3778
The idea of Trump citing fact checking on anything is awesome.
Linsey Graham is out.
Too bad. He was always good for a snarky comment or two. Maybe he still will be.
I’m no Trump fan, but what the WaPo/AP/FactCheck.org are saying is basically, “We have no hard evidence, and when we pressed the person who made the claim originally, she provided us with no hard evidence, but because Trump is a dick, ISIS is probably using him.” And you’re citing that as any more reliable than Fox News’s fact check?
On the other hand, here is a story about an ISIS recruiting video which features Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, along with Bush (43) and John McCain. (ISIS insulting Western leaders of differing political persuasions equally doesn’t surprise me, really. We’re all the same system to them.)
Up through late August the administration was pushing hard for war, the red line had been violated, and Assad would be punished. Human rights violations would not be tolerated. Then everything started falling apart.
The IC wouldn’t sign off on the white house’s assessment, they indicated (correctly) that there was no evidence that the Syrian Arab Army was responsible. Indeed, US assets had covertly tagged the Syrian chemical stockpile. If those weapons were moved, we’d know about it. And there were no satellite photos of SAA units loading the rockets with fuel. Further, there was no signals intelligence to support the assertion. No orders, no intercepted communications. The paper trail that should exist, didn’t exist. IIRC, what they had was a confused call between two Syrian officers - one furious, the other confused, asking who was responsible for the attack.
It’s worth mentioning that we were able to test the Sarin used in the attack, and compare it to the Syrian Armies stockpiles. The signatures didn’t match.
The administration felt trapped by the President’s own words, but the lack of support from the IC left them with few choices. They elected to back down, and some clever soul came up with the Kerry plan. It would do some good, and it would provide the administration with a face saving out.
Who was responsible? Several of the the jihadist groups on the ground posses Sarin, but we believe that the Turks facilitated the attacks. Erdogan wanted to force the administration’s hand. How do we know this? We intercepted Turkish comms to that effect. The Turks were good about maintaining secrecy up to the final moment, but they couldn’t’ resist bragging after the fact.
The other reports are generally built off this chain of logic - did the weapons have sarin in them (yes) did the Syrian Arab Army have Sarin (yes). That’s about as close as they come to tying the Syrian Army to the attack.
